Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 01-29 PCM r 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 JANUARY 29, 1987 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Wallace Bernards and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and City Engineer Bo Spurrier. Chairman Lucht explained that Commissioner Sandstrom was unable to attend this evening's meeting due to illness and Commissioner Nelson had previously been excused from this evening's meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 15, 1987 mmissioner— ernards rerred--fo- page 5, paragraph 3 of the January 15, 1987 Planning Commission minutes and stated that the concern he expressed was not regarding cars moving into the site on the perimeter road, but rather his concern for regulating speed on the Brookdale perimeter road and the possible need for traffic control signs there. He requested the minutes to be so amended. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the January 15, 1987 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Bernards and Wa.11erstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NOS. 86045, 86046, and 86047 (Crown Coco, Inc.) Following the Chairman's explanation, there was a motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to remove Application Nos. 86045, 86046 and 86047 submitted by Crown Coco, Inc. from the table. The motion passed unanimously. s The Secretary then proceeded to review the applications noting that Application No. 86045 was a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a convenience store/gasoline station on the old Arthur Treacher's site at 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted that this application had been tabled by the Planning Commission on December 11, 1986 with direction to the applicant to redesign the plans so as to eliminate the need for any variances. He noted that Application No. 86046, a request for a rear yard setback variance and Application No. 86047, a request for a parking variance were being withdrawn by the applicant based on the newly submitted plan. The Secretary next reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86045 dated 1-29- 87) • The Secretary indicated that the public hearing on these applications had been continued by the Planning Commission and required notices had been sent. He pointed out, however, that notices sent to the members of the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group had been inadvertently forgotten and had not been sent. He stated that he had contacted Tony Kuefler, Chairman of the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group, and informed him that the matter would be back on the Commission's agenda this evening. He explained that Mr. Kuefler stated that he would contact other members 1-29-87 -1- of the Neighborhood Advisory Group, but would himself would be unable to attend. Mr. Kuefler had informed the Secretary that he still had the same concerns as expressed on December 11, 1986, that being concerned about traffic movements on Brooklyn Bouelvard; that no variances be granted for the use; and a major concern regarding outside storage being allowed. Mr. Kuefler had informed the Secretary that his overall concern regarding outside storage related to the image of Brooklyn Boulevard and that he would like to see no outside storage and display allowed at all. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Bernards, the Secretary stated that the question of one access to the site was not a major point raised during the Planning Commission's review of this plan on December 11, 1986. He pointed out, however, that the staff report given on that date did indicate the belief that two accesses to the site was a step backward in managing traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard and that Hennepin County would have to issue a permit for the proposed access arrangement. The Secretary stated further that no comments from Hennepin County regarding this matter had been received before December 11, 1986, and that it was not until the staff met with a representative of the County, a few days after the Commission's meeting that the matter came into focus. He noted that the applicant had been immediately advised of the concern and was requested to develop a plan with only one access to the site. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether they had anything to add to the application. He recognized Mr. John Finley, an attorney representing the Crown Coco, Inc. Mr. Finley pointed out that originally his client had submitted plans which would have required three variances from the City Ordinances. He noted that one had to do with the distance between accesses being 50 feet; another had to do with a parking variance; and finally the third variance had to do with the rear yard setback requirement. He explained that the variance involving less than 50 feet for the accesses had been withdrawn due to a redesign of the site. Mr. Finley next referred to the plan and noted that the staff had suggested moving the pump islands so that they were parallel to Brooklyn Boulevard rather than parallel to the proposed convenience store to help traffic movement on the site. He pointed out that this request had been complied with and that he thought traffic movement on the site is improved. He added that the radii on the two access points had also been modified, as was suggested by the staff, sb that traffic entering the site from Brooklyn Boulevard would not be hindered. He pointed out that to have only one access would cause traffic congestion both on the site and entering and exiting the site from Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Finley next referred to the action taken by the Planning Commission to table this application on December 11, 1986 and the staff's recommendation contained in the December 11, 1986 Planning Commission Information Sheet. He reviewed each of the 10 points contained in the information sheet which recommended specific changes to the plan. He noted that the plan before the Planning Commission this evening has been redesigned to meet all of the recommended changes mentioned at the December 11, 1986 meeting. Mr. Finley stated that his client has done everything that the Planning Commission and the City staff wanted based on the information given back in December. He noted that it is only now that the staff is opposed to the plans on the grounds of two access points and that this matter had not been raised at the previous meeting. He reiterated that his client has complied with all of the recommendations of the Commission and staff and that he finds no City ordinance requirement that would 1-29-87 -2- limit this site to only one access. He urged the Planning Commission to give a favorable recommendation to the proposed plans on the grounds that all concerns have been addressed and the fact that two access points will not cause further congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard and on the site. Commissioner Malecki inquired as to why only one-way traffic would be allowed by the building. Mr. Finley responded that there would not be enough room for two-way traffic between the pump island and the building and that this area would be signed for one-way traffic only. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Bernards, the Secretary stated that the Zoning Ordinance limits the width of an access to 30 feet along the property line in commercial districts. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht noted that the public hearing for this matter had been continued from the December 11, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. He recognized Mr. Jerry Tachney, 3606 61st Avenue North. Mr. Tachney inquired as to the hours of operation and the number of days a year it would be open. Mr. Finley responded that the operation would be a 365 day a year, 24 hour a day operation. Mr. Tachney inquired as to why the community, and the neighborhood in particular, would need such an operation. He was opposed to the application. Chairman Lucht next recognized Mr. Martyn Bialke, of 6036 Ewing Avenue North, He stated that the development of this site as proposed by the Crown representatives would cause more noise, there would be motor bikes, and a young crowd at the site causing disruption and noise 24 hours a day. He inquired as to who would control these problems and also the proposed one-way traffic on the site. He also was opposed to the application. Following further comments and clarifications, Chairman Lucht inquired if anyone else wished to be heard regarding the matter. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Fiction by Commissioner Malecki and seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearings on Application Nos. 86045, 86046 and 86047. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Malecki, referring to the floor plan, inquired as to what the fast food counter involved. Mr. Finley responded that this would be an area to sell pop and other take out items. He noted that they do not propose to sell sandwiches or other food items requiring that they be heated by a microwave or other type oven. Chairman Lucht commented that the major concerns regarding Brooklyn Boulevard are traffic and the potential for traffic congestion on that roadway. He stated that he believed this proposal would cause traffic congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard. He pointed out that he is not particularly happy with the sites on both sides of this site having new access points, but noted they are already in existence and the situation should not be worsened. Commissioner Bernards inquired if the proposed gasoline station/convenience store was a use consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary responded that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that this site as well as the adjoining areas be utilized for service/office rather than general commerce uses. He pointed out that the proposed use is a special use in the C2 zoning district and, as such, must 1-29-87 -3- meet the Standards for Special Use Permits to be allowed. The Secretary further pointed out that a recent State Statute states that where there is conflict between a municipality's Comprehensive Plan and the existing ordinance, that the existing Zoning Ordinance would prevail. Commissioner Bernards commented that recent revisions were made to the Westbrook Mall site to allow an access to Brooklyn Boulevard from that site. He pointed out that in that situation a driveway to the First Brookdale Bank was closed and a new access to Westbrook Mall was created. He noted the distinction between that situation and what was proposed by the applicant in this case. The Secretary commented extensively regarding the review process. He stated the question of one or two accesses was not a major issue prior to the December 11, 1986 Commission meeting. Most of the staff's review centered around the requested setback and parking variances as well as the pump island location and traffic flow on the site. He noted that it wasn't until after December 11, that the two access question came into focus. He questioned the logic implied by the applicant that the two accesses should not now be an issue because the applicant had met all the points of concern previously put forth. The Secretary added that the access is a legitimate concern and that because it wasn't mentioned as a major point previously, does not mean that it is too late to bring the subject to the Commission's attention. He added that the Zoning Ordinance requires that a finding be made that all of the Standards for a Special Use Permit are met, before a site can be devoted to such a use. He stated that it is the staff's recommendation that the two accesses would lead to further congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard, that Standard (d) of Section 35- 220, Subdivision 2 cannot be met and, therefore, the application should be denied. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86045 (Crown Coco, Inc.) Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to recommend to the City Council that Planning Commission Application No. 86045 submitted by Crown Coco, Inc. be denied on the grounds that allowing two access points to this site for the proposed use will add to congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard and that Standard (d) of Section 35-220 Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance cannot be met. A lengthy discussion ensued among the Planning Commission following the motion. Commissioner- Malecki inquired of the Commission if the motion meant that the Planning Commission would recommend the application favorably if only one access were provided. She noted her concern that the proposed use may well be in conflict with other Standards for Special Use Permits and that she does not favor recommending approval of the use even if there were only one access. Commissioner Wallerstedt noted that her main concern was regarding the number of accesses. Commissioner Bernards stated that he had the same concerns as Commissioner Malecki regarding what would be communicated to the applicant by this recommendation. He indicated that he did not feel a gasoline station at this particular site was appropriate. If it were an appropriate use, then two accesses rather than one might be better. Commissioner Malecki commented further noting that during the public hearing neighbors concerns over noise were related. She stated that she has concern whether Standard (b) of Section 35-220 could be met by this applicant as well. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas and seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to amend the previous motion to recommend to the City 1-29-87 -4- Council that Planning Commission Application No. 86045 be denied on the basis that the proposal is in conflict with the Standards for Special Use Permits contained in Section 35-220 Subdivision 2, particularly Standards (b), (c) and (d) . Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion unanimously. Commissioner Lucht suggested that the Commission acknowledge the withdrawal of Planning Commission Application Nos. 86046 and 86047. While this matter was being discussed, Mr. Finley requested the Commission to take action on the two variance requests stating that as long as the Planning Commission was recommending denial of the special use permit and the accompanying site plan, the applicant would like to keep their option open by keeping the variance requests active. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86046 (Crown Coco, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Planning Commission Application No. 86046 involving a rear yard setback variance on the grounds that the Standards for Variances contained in Section 35-240 Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86047 (Crown Coco, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Planning Commission Application No. 86047, a request for a variance from the City's parking requirement, on the grounds that the Standards for Variances contained in Section 35-240 Subdivision 2 of the Zoning Ordinance are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Wallerstedt seconded by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The P1 ing Commission adjourned at 8:43 p.m. t 4irmahJ 1-29-87 -5- 1 1 1