Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 01-15 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 JANUARY 15, 1987 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1986 Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Mike Nelson, Wallace Bernards and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht explained that Commissioner Sandstrom was out of town and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 11, 1986 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the December 11, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Ainas and Wallerstedt. The motion passed. ADJOURN 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the 1986 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary then administered the oath of office of Planning Commissioner to Chairman Lucht and Commissioners Ainas and Bernards. CALL TO ORDER 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION P 177 Planning Commission was then called to order by Chairman George Lucht. ROLL CALL 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Mike Nelson, Wallace Bernards, and Ann Wallerstedt. Commissioner Carl Sandstrom was excused. ELECT 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN There was a nomination by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki for George Lucht as 1987 Planning Commission Chairman. Chairman Lucht asked whether there were any other nominations. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close nominations. CLOSE NOMINATIONS Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close nominations for 1987 Planning Commission Chairman. The motion passed unanimously. George Lucht was thereby elected 1987 Planning Commission Chairman. ELECT 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PRO TEM There was a nomination by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki for Commissioner Mike Nelson as 1987 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. Chairman 1-15-87 -1- Lucht asked whether there were any other nominations. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close nominations. CLOSE NOMINATIONS Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to close nominations for Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mike Nelson was thereby elected as 1987 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. APPLICATION NOS. 87001 AND 87002 (Construction 70, Inc.) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first two items of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a day care center immediately south of the office building at 6040 Earle Brown Drive and a request for preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide into two tracts the parcel of land on Earle Brown Drive between the Park Nicollet Clinic and the office building at 6040 Earle Brown Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 87001 and 87002 attached). The Secretary added that a plan had been submitted showing a possible noise wall wrapping around the play area behind the building. He stated that such a wall would have to be built to the specifications used by MNDOT for noise walls adjacent to freeways. He stated that staff did not have the expertise to know the precise height or location necessary for the noise wall. He also stated that he did not know whether the applicant intended to formally propose the noise wall. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the playground would be fenced in so that no emergency vehicles could get to the playground area. The Secretary pointed out a gate on the north side of the building. The developer, Mr. Gene Peterson, stated that there would be a 10' wide gate in this area to allow emergency vehicles to get to the playground area. Commissioner Nelson asked how the day care center would affect development of the land to the south and whether it would be possible for the center to be built on the south side of the property. The Secretary explained that the southern portion of the property had an irregular shape that would make designing access to the site and efficient use of the land difficult. He stated that a larger development could more easily shape the parking lot into the triangular corner of the lot. The Planner added that the development potential of the remaining three acres was still considerable. He estimated that an office building of perhaps 50,000 sq. ft. could be built on the remaining land. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. The developer, Mr. Gene Peterson, stated that he had no problem with providing a sound fence. He stated that he did not expect this requirement because he had built a day care center on I-35W that has no sound fence. Mr. Peterson stated that he did not want a stockade-type fence. He pointed out that there would be strong supervision of the children in the playground area. He recommended to the Commission that berming and trees be used instead, but stated that he would be willing to put up a fence. Chairman Lucht explained that the requirement for a noise wall was a local ordinance. Mr. Peterson stated that he preferred to proceed with the application rather than table it. He stated that he felt the day care center would be compatible with high rises and mentioned other instances where it was considered compatible. He stated that he had looked at building the center on the south end of the property, but that it was difficult to design a site layout for that area. 1-15-87 -2 Chairman Lucht pointed out a note on the plan indicating that a noise wall would be provided, but that landscaping would be deleted. The Planner explained that staff had expressed a concern about noise attenuation and that landscaping was suggested as one way of meeting that concern. He explained that he later discovered the ordinance language which required a noise wall. He stated that the latest plan reflects the requirement for a noise wall. The Secretary explained the background of the ordinance amendment. The Secretary explained that day care centers in the past have been located in residential districts. He explained that the ordinance prohibited day care playground areas from being in yards abutting major thoroughfares, unless those thoroughfares were buffered by a noise wall, a noise berm or excess right-of-way. He pointed out that such mitigating buffers allowed breaks in setback requirements, etc. to adjacent developments. He stated that the staff would have to get the specifications for noise walls in order to evaluate the applicant's proposal. Mr. Peterson again noted a case in which he had built a day care center adjacent to I-35W which did not require a noise wall. He stated, however, that he would gladly work with the City on providing a noise wall. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 87001 and 87002) Chairman Lucht noted that a public hearing had been scheduled for the special use permit and for the preliminary registered land survey. He asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding those applications. No one spoke. Chairman Lucht asked the Commission for their feelings whether to table the matter or recommend it with conditions. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt everything was basically in order except the item of the noise wall. He noted the applicant's stated willingness to comply with that requirement. He recommended that approval be recommended subject to a change in the plans to meet the noise wall requirements. Commissioner Bernards asked whether there were any standards for such a noise wall. The Secretary responded that staff had talked to MNDOT briefly about this question and that their standard was to achieve 65 decibels in the playground area. He stated that he did not know what the required height of the wall would be or the distance along the north and south property lines that the wall would have to wrap back. Commissioner Wallerstedt stated that she was as concerned about dust and fumes as about noise. She asked whether the noise wall would help keep out pollution. The Secretary responded that that would depend to a great extent on wind conditions. The City Engineer added that MNDOT has more than one set of standards for noise walls. He explained that there is one set of standards for residential areas and another for industrial areas. For this site, he stated, he felt the ordinance required conformance with a residential standard. Chairman Lucht stated that one problem with the ordinance is that it would allow a playground set back 50' from the right-of-way. The Secretary stated that the 50' setback requirement applies primarily to structures. He compared the situation to the Evergreen Apartments which were allowed to be closer than 50' when there was a noise wall. The Planner suggested that a more valid comparison would be with the noise attenuation achieved if the playground were on the other side of the building which he felt would be comparable to the noise attenuation achieved by the noise wall. He stated that the design of the noise wall would probably have to be evaluated by an engineer with a knowledge of acoustics and suggested that, at minimum, there be a condition requiring such an evaluation. 1-15-87 -3- Commissioner Malecki stated that she was not comfortable with sending the application on with this issue unresolved. She stated that it was an important issue that affected the layout of the site. The Secretary reminded the Commission that the applicant proposed to build the wall himself and that this is not strictly acknowledged in the ordinance. He stated that the Commission should make a finding that allowing the applicant to build the wall to MNDOT'S specification is acceptable. Commissioner Nelson stated that the purpose of the ordinance is presumably sound abatement. The Secretary stated that the assumption when the ordinance was written was that the noise wall program was over and that certain locations would be eligible and others not eligible. Commissioner Ainas again stated that he would be comfortable with the recommendation of an acoustic engineer. Mr. Gene Peterson stated that he has done extensive work with Twin City Testing and would be glad to have them evaluate the noise wall design. He asked that the application be sent on, subject to that design being brought back. He stated that the cost of doing the evaluation was something he was willing to pay. Chairman Lucht expressed appreciation for the applicant's willingness to cooperate, but stated that he did not feel tabling for two weeks was a serious problem. He added that he did not think the Commission had any problem with the use itself and that it would be a credit to the community. Chairman Lucht asked for the Commission's reaction on the applicant building the wall himself. All of the Commissioners stated they had no problem with proceeding in that fashion. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (Construction 70, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to continue the public hearing on Application No. 87002. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 87001 (Construction 70, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 87001, and direct the applicant to provide a detailed plan for meeting the requirement for a noise wall adjacent to a major thoroughfare. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 87002 (Construction 70, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 87002 until the site plan for Application No. 87001 is completed per the previous motion. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 87003 and 870014 (Federated Department Stores) The Secretary then introduced the next two items of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a two-storey 73,189 sq. ft. retail store on the land presently occupied by the old Plitt Theater, Daytons Garden Store and gas station and a request for preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide the land east of the Shingle Creek culvert in the Brookdale complex including the land mentioned above. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 87003 and 870014 attached) . The Secretary also explained an existing arrangement for joint parking between the Plitt Theater and the Ground Round Restaurant. 1-15-87 -4- The City Engineer added that the precise location of the watermain through the site was not yet known. He stated that the site needs a watermain loop to provide adequate pressure for the uses served in this area. He stated that a transmission main was presently used to provide adequate pressure. The City Engineer added that the project had been established by the City Council and that it would be desirable to coordinate this City project with the development. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Ms. Mary Senkus, an attorney with Oppenheimer, Wolff and Donnelly, explained to the Commission that Mainstreet is a division of Federated Department Stores and that representatives of Mainstreet had come to the meeting. She introduced Mr. David Pierson, Senior Vice President of Mainstreet to explain more about Mainstreet. Mr. Pierson explained that there are 15 Mainstreet Stores in the Chicago and Detroit areas and that it is the fastest growing division of Federated Department Stores which includes a number of retail chains, including Bloomingdale Is. He stated that Mainstreet sells soft goods to middle income customers, primarily families with growing children. He also stated that 75% of the merchandise sold in the stores are national brands. Commissioner Bernards asked what the store hours and days would be. Mr. Peterson answered that they would be the same as BrookdaleI s hours. Mr. Bernards also asked who the traffic expert was for the project. He expressed concern regarding regulating speed on the Brookdale perimeter road and the possible need for traffic -control signs on that road. Chairman Lucht suggested that Mainstreet plant something other than Russian Olives in the greenstrip adjacent to Highway 100. He pointed out that there are numerous Russian Olives already along the Brookdale site. He suggested Canada Red Cherries or Choke Cherries to distinguish the site somewhat from Brookdale. The Secretary asked the applicant whether he understood the recommended conditions. Mr. Ernst Koehler, Director of Architect and Planning for MainStreet responded in the affirmative and stated that they would comply. ' PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 87004) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 87004, the preliminary R.L.S. for the property. He asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Notion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMNDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 87003 (Federated Department Stores) - Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 87003, 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. 1-15-87 -5- 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. 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. 9. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The new R.L.S. for the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The storm water purification and detention plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management ° Commission prior to the issuance of permits. 12. The on-site traffic control signery shall be provided in accordance with the recommendations of the Director of Public Works. 13. The location of hydrants and fire lanes on the property shall be subject to approval by the Fire Chief. 14. The plans shall be modified, prior to consideration by the City Council, in the following manner: - a) The radius of the entrance drive off County Road 10 as it branches off the front of the building shall be increased (widened) to allow movement of a fire truck through this access to the front of the building. b) Additional trees such as Canada Red Cherries or Choke Cherries (not Russian Olives) shall be provided in the greenstrip adjacent to Highway 100 to provide better screening of the parking lot and loading dock area. 1-15-87 -6- c) An additional handicapped ramp shall be provided southeast of the southwest entrance to the building. d) A pedestrian walkway and widened greenstrip for snow storage shall be provided in the area of the first row of parking south of the main entrance drive. e) An additional parking lot light shall be installed at the southwest access to the site in order to provide lighting for both the access and the City's walkway. 15. Plan approval acknowledges proof-of-parking for up to 60 parking spaces (including those referred to in 14d above). The applicant shall execute an agreement prepared by the City Attorney to install said parking spaces upon a determination by the City that they are necessary for the proper functioning of the site. This agreement shall be filed with the title to the property at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 16. Storage of trailors on the site, other than at the loading dock is expressly prohibited. 17. Relocation of the access of County Road 10 is subject to review and approval by Hennepin County. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 87004 (Federated Department Stores) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 87004, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The applicant shall execute an easement for storm detention areas consistent with a drainage and utility plan approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to release of the final R.L.S. for filing. 4. The applicant shall update the following easements as necesary prior to final R.L.S. approval: a) a nonexclusive easement granting the Ground Round site (Tract A, R.L.S. 1430) parking rights to 71 stalls on the new Mainstreet site, in accordance with City ordinance requirements. b) ingress and egress easement over the perimeter road portion of the proposed Tract A to both the Mainstreet site and the 1-15-87 -7- Ground Round site. c) ingress and egress easement over the proposed Tract B to the Ground Round site. d) relocation of the Northwestern Bell easement. e) City watermain proposed through the site. 5• The applicant shall provide topographic and utility information, for the proposed Tract A, including the size and the location of the existing Shingle Creek culvert, prior to final R.L.S. approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Preview of 1987 The Secretary and the Planner then reviewed with the Commission upcoming developments that would, in all likelihood, come before the Commission in 1987. Study items along with major office developments and a high tech industrial building likely to be proposed by Lombard Properties. The Secretary added that there may be proposals for reuse of the Earle Brown Farm and possibly even a proposal to build the fourth phase of the Brookdale Corporate Center by Ryan Construction. The Planner updated the Commission on the status of the Crown Oil applications. He explained that staff had met with a representative of the County regarding access to the site and that the conclusion reached was that the site should only be allowed one access. He stated that Crown Oil wished to have two accesses and would propose a revised plan meeting other ordinance requirements, but with two accesses. The Secretary also discussed with the Commission the land area near Lynbrook Bowl. He stated that Vantage Corporation had proposed an office/industrial building in the area, but that the City prefers a large, multi-storey, unified development. Commissioner Ainas encouraged the staff not to give any financial incentive for a mini warehouse development. Commissioner Bernards recommended waiting for quality development. The Secretary explained that there are many small parcels in the area which could be developed with uses that would be permitted under the Zoning Ordinance which might in the long run impede a desirable development of the property. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:04 p.m. r Chair 1-15-87 -8-