Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 08-14 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 AUGUST 14, 1980 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7:37 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson,Lucht,Erickson and Simmons. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska and Planning Assistant G ry Shallcross. Director of Public Works Sy Knapp _arrived during tie recess. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 24, 1980 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the July 24, 1980 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 80027 (Frank Lachinski) Following the Chairman' s explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request to resubdivide two 40' x 128' lots at 5419 Fremont Avenue North which were combined formerly for tax purposes. The Secretary reviewed the contents of Staff Report No. 80027 (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 80027 attached) . During the presentation of the staff report, the Secretary pointed out on a transparency the 3" encroachment of the sidewalk serving 5419 Fremont onto the property to be split off. He also indicated the buildable area on Lot 7. He explained that prior to 1976 , lots which were located in the R2 zone had to be combined into standard size lots in order to be considered buildable. The ordi- nance amendment to Section 35-500 in 1976 allowed for the contin- uation of the smaller lots. He stated the Planning Commission review of resubdivisions is performed to ensure that the newly created lot meets ordinance standards as laid out in Section 35-500 and to ensure that property lines have not been built over. There was a brief discussion in which Chairman Hawes inquired about access to an accessory structure. The Secretary explained that an alley existed at the rear of the two lots to be resubdivided. Chairman Hawes asked whether the applicant agreed to removing the three inch encroachment of the sidewalk at 5419 Fremont from the lot to the south. The applicant consented. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80027 (Frank Lachinski) Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to recommend approval of Application No. 80027, a request to resub- divide Lot 6 and Lot 7 of Fairhaven Park Addition which were com- bined formerly for tax purposes, subject to the following conditions: 1. The resubdivision is subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the City Assessor prior to filing with the County. 8-14-80 -1- 2. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. 3. The applicant shall remove that portion of the sidewalk on Lot 6 (5419 Fremont) that encroaches onto Lot 7. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed from 7:53 p.m. to 7:57 p.m. to allow Commissioner Malecki and the Planning Assistant to make emergency phone calls. APPLICATION NO. 80028 and 80029 (Harron United Methodist Church) The Planning Assistant introduced the next stem of business, site and building plan and special use permit approval for an off-site accessory parking lot at the northwest corner of 55th and Dupont Avenue North serving Harron United Methodist Church located at the same intersection. The Planning Assistant also reviewed the staff report for a variance from Section 35-700 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the greenstrip between off-street parking and street right-of-way. (See Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 80028 and 80029 attached) . Following the presentation of both staff reports, the Planning Assistant noted that the applicant proposed chains to be placed across the entrance at 55th Avenue and at the entrance at Dupont Avenue North in order to control cut-through traffic. He also noted that the plans were to be revised to indicate a shrub row along Dupont and 55th Avenues within the greenstrip area to pro- vide the screening required by the Zoning Ordinance. In response to a question from Chairman Hawes, the Superintendent of Engineering confirmed that the driveways to the parking lot would be concrete on 55th Avenue, but bitumipous on Dupo t Avenue since improvements are scheduled for Dupont in the near uture, Commissioner Simmons pointed out that the church is located in the R2 zone and the parking lot in the R1 zone. She asked why a rezoning of the church was not being pursued since the off-site accessory lot would be located in a zone more restrictive than that of the principal use which is forbidden by Section 35-701 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Assistant responded that Section 35-701 also provides that "for the purposes of this section of the Zoning Ordinance, institutional Rl uses shall be considered the same as Cl uses. " He stated that the church and the property on which the parking lot was to be built were, for the purposes of Section 35-701, both C1 in nature. He also pointed out the example of Cross of Glory Lutheran Church which is in the Rl zone, but which also provides parking space for an office to the south. This arrangement, he said, would be precluded if Commissioner Sim- mons ' interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance were applied. Com- missioner Simmons acknowledged this example, but expressed a con- cern that the City could get into trouble approving such an ar- rangement across zones. The Secretary pointed out that justifying the rezoning of the church would be equally difficult since it could be considered a case of spot zoning. He stated that the case is simply one of 8-14-80 -2- a church using church property and that the use is- essentially the same for the two properties. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the ordinance had been amended for the specific purpose of allowing off-site accessory parking arrangements on church land. The Secretary answered that this was part of the intent, but added that a number of previous ap- provals of off-site accessory parking arrangements with insti- tutional Rl uses implied the same understanding sought by the recent ordinance revision. The Planning Assistant added that the ordinance speaks of off-site accessory parking within zoning districts of the same or less restriction as that of the princi- pal use. He pointed out that the Brookdale Office Tower which is located in the C2 Zoning District would certainly be allowed to have an off-site accessory parking arrangement with a Cl pro- perty since the office building is a Cl type use. He pointed out that the church is essentially an institutional R1 use with- in the R2 zone, and therefore, the parking lot does not introduce a use not permitted in the R1 zone. In response to a question from Commissioner Simmons, the Planning Assistant stated that the staff prefer that the church obtain an easement from the property to the west for snow storage and drain- age purposes. However, he pointed out,. the 2�' greenstrip along the west property line would be adequate to meet the screening re- quirement between off-street parking and R1 uses. He stated that if the property owners to the west withdraw their permission to allow snow storage and drainage from the parking lot over the pro-. perty, the snow from the parking lot would simply have to be re- moved in some other fashion. The Secretary explained that approval of the site plan for the parking lot essentially defers the screen- ing requirement between the parking lot and the R1 use, such screen- ing to be provided by the church on its own property if the lilacs on the neighboring property were to fail. Commissioner Simmons noted that the snow being stored on the parking lot will wind up forcing cars onto the street, thus negating the benefit of the parking lot. The Secretary acknowledged this possibility, but pointed to the difficult circumstances surrounding the application and the need to weigh priorities. Chairman Hawes noted that a variance to allow a 10' greenstrip and regular size parking stalls would eliminate one stall. The Secretary noted that the proposed handicapped stall is not required and the extra space from that stall could allow for the same number of spaces to be placed along the east side of the lot. Chairman Hawes asked whether a concrete median through the center of the lot would serve to control cut-through traffic. The Planning Assistant answered that while this probably could be accomplished without reducing the number of parking stalls in the lot, it would be much more costly, both in terms of installation and maintenance, without being much more effective than chaining off the parking lot. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Gilbert Engdahl, a former Planning Commission member and a member of Harron United Methodist Church, asked the Commission whether concrete curb would be required -around the parking lot. Chairman Hawes responded that this was an ordinance requirement for all 8-14-80 -3- 'off-street parking. Chairman Hawes asked whether the curb would extend to the street. The Superintendent of Engineering responded that curb need only be installed up to the property line. A resident from the neighborhood of the church stated that screen- ing the parking lot from the street with a fence would look ugly. Chairman Hawes answered that the intent of the approval is for a shrub row to provide that screening rather than a fence. The Secretary pointed out that screening of off-street parking lots more than six stalls in size is required by the Zoning Ordinance. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Assistant explained that the first reason for ap- proving the variance applied for under Application No. 80029 acknowledges a set of priorities which accurately reflect the pub- lic interest in this particular case. He stated that the prior- ities acknowledged for this approval were different than those adopted in the Howe Fertilizer case where it was considered more- important to provide buffering and landscaping between the industrial use and neighboring residences than to eliminate parking deficiencies. He stated that these priorities are not fixed for all cases, but must continually be re-examined in the light of particular circum- stances. _ ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80028 (Harron United Methodist Church) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Comm issioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 80028, site and building plan and special use permit approval of a 40 stall off-site acces- sory parking lot located at the northwest corner of Dupont and 55th, subject to the following conditions: ' 1. Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the special use permit. 2. A performance agreement with a supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City .Manager) shall be entered into by the applicant prior to the issuance of the permit. 3. The site plan shall be modified to indicate screening of the parking lot from residences across Dupont and across 55th Avenue North in accordance with Section 35-711 of the City Ordinances prior to consideration by the City Council. 4. Plan approval is subject to the granting of a variance comprehended by Application No. 80029; regarding a greenstrip encroachment. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City's Ordinance. 8-14-80 -4- 6. The approved plan shall be certified by an architect or engineer registered in the State of Minnesota prior to the issuance of permits. 7. The Special Use Permit for Accessory Off-Site Parking comprehended by Section 35-701 Sub- division 3 is issued to the Harron United Methodist Church and is nontransferable. 8. The Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable ordinances, codes, and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 9. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 10. Should the existing screening to the north and/or the west of the site fail, the Church shall replace such screening with a minimum 6 ' high opaque screening device as required by City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80029 (Harron United Methodist Church) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Lucht to recommend approval of Application No. 80029, a request for a variance from Section 35-700 of the City Ordinances to allow a 10 ' greenstrip along the east property line of the parking lot to serve Harron United Methodist Church, for the following reasons: 1. Not only the applicant, but the public as well would be adversely affected from the denial of the variance. (This is based on the finding that the priorities outlined below accurately reflect the public interest in this particular case) . a. Minimize the existing parking space deficiency and provide, as far as possible, adequate parking for the church. b. Maintain ordinance standards for parking 'and- driving lanes to ensure that the lot functions properly in accommodating. church traffic. c. Provide screening of off-street parking areas as required by City Ordinance. d. Provide adequate green space on the site. 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique in _that the parcel in question is to be put to use to alleviate an existin deficiency in the parking required for the church and will not be re.cog- nized as grounds for further expansion. 8-14-80 -5- . The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which cannot all be met simultaneously in this case. The hardship was not created by persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land in that it was platted in a size and shape to serve residential as opposed to institutional needs. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood so long as the conditions attaching to the approval of the site plan are met. APPLICATION NOS . 80030 and 80031 (Merila-Hansen/Village Builders) The Planning Assistant introduced the next item of business, site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for a le unit townhouse project to be located on the west side of Humboldt, just north of 67th Avenue North. He reviewed the contents of Staff Report Nos. 80030;'arid .,80031 (See Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. '80030 and 80031 attached) . Following the presentation of the staff report, Chairman Hawes asked for a clarification of whether the trees located presently where the buildings are to stand would have to be replaced. - The Planning Assistant answered that only those trees shown on the site plan as part of the landscaping for the site would have to be replaced should they be removed during construction or die out prematurely. Commissioner Manson asked why the staff recommended 6" rather than 8" sewer pipe at the west end of the project. The Superintendent of Engineering responded that there are difficulties presented by feeding a larger pipe into a smaller pipe as proposed by the appli- cant. Chairman Hawes asked whether five stalls for guest parking would be adequate. The Secretary answered that the proposal provides four parking stalls per unit as opposed to the ordinance require- ment of two per unit. The Secretary also pointed out that the density credit for the proposed project is optional at the dis- cretion of the Planning Commission and City Council. He noted that this credit was extended to two previous townhouse develop- ments and that in light of the R5 zoning of the land, approval of the density credit could be justified. Mr. James Merila, representing Village Builders, pointed out. that the site provides 45 parking stalls as opposed to 20 required by the ordinance. He explained that the 16 ' wide driveways were pro- posed in order to allow more green area between driveways. The Planning Assistant pointed out that the reason the driveways were widened was to provide the same amount of area within the .drive- way as would be required for two normal parking spaces. Mr. Merila took issue with the requirement outlined in the staff report to replace all trees that die off with trees that will grow to a comparable size. He stated that if there is a significant die-off of existing trees, the applicant would prefer to then sub- mit a new landscape plan. He pointed out that the amount of land- scaping provided on the site with the. existing trees is far in ex- cess of what would normally be required on a barren site. Commis- sioner Simmons pointed out that many of the trees on the site are elms and that if one dies, the rest are likely to- die also. Chair- man Hawes asked Mr. Merila what he would offer as a substitute plan R-14-Rn _A_ for landscaping. Mr. Merila responded that there would certainly be fewer and smaller trees on a landscape plan which started from scratch. The Secretary explained that the purpose of the replace- ment requirement is that existing' trees are part of an approved landscape plan. He added that replacement of existing trees may not have to be on a one for one basis, but that the general charac- ter of the landscape plan should be maintained. Chairman Hawes suggested that the existing elms shown on the plan be eliminated from the replacement requirement. Mr. Merila agreed to this proposal. By consensus, the rest of the Planning Commission agreed with the proposal to exempt existing elm trees from the re- placement requirement to be applied to other existing trees on the site. Commissioner Erickson asked Mr. Kauffmann what price range these townhouses would likely sell in. Mr. Kauffmann responded that the likely price range was from $65,000.00 to $75,000.00. Commissioner Lucht commented that the townhouses- would make a nice break from the row of apartments along the west side of Humboldt Avenue. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Erickson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80030 (Merila-Hansen/Village Builders) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 80030, site and building plan approval for a 10 unit townhouse project on the west side of Humboldt, north of 67th Avenue North, subject to the following con- ditions: 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 and utility and landscaping plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. All outside trash disposal facilities and/or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appro- priately screened from view. S. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all common driving and parking areas. 6. The landscape plan acknowledges some existing 8-14-80 -7- trees, but not elms. If these existing trees should die off or be removed during construction, they shall be replaced with 2h" to 3h" trees. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80031 (Merila-Hansen/Village Builders) " . . " Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 80031, preliminary plat approval for ,a 10 unit townhouse project on Humboldt Avenue, north of 67th Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat approval is subject to Chapter 15 of the City Ordinance. 2. The final plat is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 3 The homeowners association documents shall be filed with the plat at the County and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. 4. The owner shall enter into an easement agreement with the City to allow the - easterly 10 feet of the property to be , used for public sidewalk purposes prior to approval of the final plat. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: , none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9 : 36 p.m. and resumed at- 9:57 p.m. APPLICATION NOS. 80021 and 80022 (Commercial Partners) Following the recess , the Secretary introduced the next item of business, preliminary plat and site and building plan approval for a shopping center-theater-restaurant complex to be located on the vacant land, north of Brookdale Ford on the east side of Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary reviewed the information contained in the staff report for these two applications. (See Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application No. 80021 and 80022 attached) . Following the presentation of the staff report, the Secretary added that Jeff Anderson, the consultant retained by the City to offer alternative layouts for the complex, had stressed that visibility for the shopping center as a whole is more important than visibility for a single tenant. Commissioner Lucht pointed out that none of the alternative suggested by Jeff Anderson provided access to Brookdale Ford. The Secretary answered that that was correct, but that staff would cer- tainly recommend an arrangement to provide access for Brookdale 8-14-80 -8- Ford so long as the south access is not the major access point. Chairman Hawes stated that he preferred Alternative No. 3 among the schemes offered by Jeff Anderson, in that it seemed to meet the concern of the applicant to have the shopping center on the north side of the site and would also make the north access the major access point. The Secretary noted that the architect for . the applicant offered a revised plan similar to Alternative No. 3 earlier in the afternoon. He stated that staff has made only a preliminary review of this plan and that he was not sure whether the applicant actually wished to submit the plan for consideration by the Commission. Commissioner Simmons stated that the existing plan submitted by the applicant does not meet the direction of the City Council. Chairman Hawes added that the present plan would create difficulty at the north access, especially if no signals were installed. Chairman Hawes asked who would bear the cost of installing signals. The Director of Public Works answered that the cost of this improvement could be negotiated in the subdivision approval. Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for comments from the applicant. Mr. Alan Gustafson of Commercial Partners addressed the Commission with an overview of where Commercial Partners stands on various issues surrounding the application. He com- plained that it had been difficult to deal with some members of the staff, in particular Ronald Warren, the Director of Planning and Inspection. He stated that the City Council, in his opinion, had voted on three issues at its last meeting. First, it had decided that the road along the north property line was not feasible and should be abandoned. Secondly, the Council directed that there should be access to Brookdale Ford through the Brook- dale Square site. Finally, he said, the Council agreed that the shopping center should be located on the north side of the site. Mr. Gustafson stated that he had talked since the Council meeting with members of the City Council who assured him that they approved the concept of the site layout as presented. Mr. Gustafson pointed , out that none of the alternate schemes offered by the staff would give access to Brookdale Ford, and that three of them would orient the- shopping center to the north rather than to the south as approved by the City Council. Chairman Hawes stated that modifying the exist- ing plan and leaving the building on the north side of the site (oriented to-the south) was acceptable to him. Commissioner Simmons asked whether it was not the direction of the City Council that the major access to the site be the north access. Mr. Gustafson stated that this was not his understanding. He added that he has discussed the site plan with the exit sign to the north and east of the shopping center with Council members Fignar and Scott and they have said that it is acceptable to them. Commissioner Simmons gave her own interpretation of the City Council's action. She noted that the orientation of the building may be important to the applicant and that the City Council may have accepted this building orientation although it was not pre- ferred. She agreed that Brookdale Ford must certainly have access through the site. Thirdly, she stated that the roadway had ob- viously been preferred by the City since that policy was adopted roughly a year ago, but that the roadway was not being pursued on the grounds that it was not feasible, not on the grounds. that it 8-14-80 _g_ was not desirable. Fourth, she stated, that the City Council certainly must have asked -that the major access to the site be the north access. Mr. Gustafson answered that he understood that the City wanted the land to be developed and that, therefore, the City's interest is the same as his own. Chairman Hawes asked whether the Planning Commission was com- fortable with the proposed layout: Commissioner Simmons answered that she was not satisfied with the proposed layout because the major access to the site would not be the north access. Commissioner Erickson stated that he had no over-riding objection to the over- all layout, but added that the traffic considerations must be worked out. Commissioners Lucht and Manson agreed. Commissioner Malecki also stated that if the northwest access to the site is the major access then she was satisfied with the layout. Mr. Gustafson acknowledged that Alternative Scheme No. 3 offered by the Planning Commission had been used as a basis to develop a revised plan for the site. He stated that he had wanted to meet with staff on Thursday, the day of the meeting, to discuss this alternative layout before taking it to the Planning Commission. The Planning Assistant pointed out that in his discussions with Mr. Fortier, a meeting on any revised plan was always expected to be either Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest. He stated that to- day was the first time a meeting on any revised plan had been pro- posed for Thursday. Mr. Gustafson reiterated that he had wanted to meet with staff and that he had made an effort to cooperate with staff on getting the plans approved. Mr. Gustafson stated that this new variation of Alternative Scheme No. 3 could work, but that it would not be optimal either for the development or for the City. He stated that he would be willing to discuss this alternative layout, but still felt the existing plan is best for the City. He concluded his remarks by asking the Planning -Commission to forward the plan to the City Council with some recommendation and not to table the application. Mr. Darrell Fortier, of Korsunsky, Krank Erickson Architects. representing Commercial Partners, next aAdressed the Planning Commission. He also stated that the applicant and his repre- sentative had planned on. meeting with staff on Thursday to review a revised layout, but that staff refused today to meet with the applicant. The Secretary and the Planning Assistant both responded that neither the applicant nor his representative had ever con- tacted either of them prior to the day of the meeting to arrange a meeting for the purpose of discussing any revised plan. They also stated that their schedules had therefore not been accom- odated for such a meeting and could not be changed at the last minute. It was pointed out that staff did not see a copy of the latest revision until 4:30 that afternoon and, therefore, could make no recommendation concerning the plan at that meeting. Mr. Fortier then reviewed the recent modification of Scheme 3. He stated that this alternative is workable, but that it presents traffic problems on the site. He pointed out that if Brookdale Ford were to change to a more intensive use, the developer of this property would not grant Brookdale Ford traffic access through his property. To do so, he stated, would draw too much traffic 8-14-80 -10- past the front of' the shopping center building. Chairman Hawes asked whether a cyclone fence could be placed along the property line between the two theaters. Mr. Gustafson answered that this would be acceptable. Commissioner Simmons asked whether a tenant had been retained for the restaurant. Mr. Fortier responded that a tenant arrangement was quite firm, but that the site layout for the restaurant could not proceed until the layout for the overall development was established. In response to a question from Chairman Hawes, Mr. Fortier stated that the distance from County Road 10 to the new location of a south curb opening was roughly 400 feet. At that point, Commissioner Simmons asked for staff reaction to the latest plan submitted by Commercial Partners. The Secretary responded that the latest plan was an improvement over the pre- vious plan, but that it was impossible to evaluate the plan in terms of parking, setbacks, landscaping, etc. since there are no dimensions or plantings indicated on the sketch. He pointed out a note scratched in. on the latest sketch which seemed to have a double meaning. Mr. Fortier explained that the note on the plan was meant to bar access to the shopping center site if Brookdale Ford changed to a more intense use. Mr. Fortier noted that no variances from the City's parking re- quirements are necessary to approve the- latest plan since it re- lies on compact car parking stalls as a means of attaining the ordinance requirements . Chairman Hawes asked how the shopping center would enforce the compact car stalls. Mr. Fortier acknow- ledged that this would be a challenge, but stated that it may be possible to design the stalls in such a way as to make it very inconvenient for noncompact cars to use them. John Winston, legal representative of Brookdale Ford, addressed the Commission to express the concerns of the car dealership. He pointed out that Brookdale Ford presently enjoys a curb and median cut onto Shingle Creek Parkway. He concurred with staff that it would be impossible to evaluate the specifics of the proposed plan on such short notice, but that the initial reaction of Brookdale Ford is favorable. He stated that he would prefer to have a full median cut on Shingle Creek Parkway and a traffic signal to allow cars to go in and out of Brookdale Ford at Shingle Creek Parkway. Chairman Hawes asked Mr*. Winston what would be the reaction of his client to the shutting off of access to the north portion of the shopping center site if Brookdale Ford were to convert to a more intense use. Mr. Winston answered that such traffic would be more of a benefit than a detriment to the shopping center and felt that the access should be left open. In response to a question from Chairman Hawes regarding entrance signs, the Secretary explained that identification signery on the property other than that for the principal use would be considered a billboard and, therefore, prohibited. He indicated, however, that directional signery on another property might be tolerated, as in the case of Cinema I, II, III and IV. Mr. Alan Gustafson of Commercial Partners again addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he much preferred that the application be sent on to the City Council. He felt that the next 8-14-80 -11- 10 days would be adequate time to work out the details of any changes with the staff. _The Secretary recommended that the Com- mission do just the opposite. He stated that it was the Planning Commission' s responsibility to evaluate the proposed plans and to make recommendations on specific plans to the City Council. He noted that while the Planning Commission has occasionally sent plans on to the City Council with certain modifications, those were plans which provided all the information required by the Zoning Ordinance. This plan, he stated, is not detailed suf ficiently for staff to make a specific recommendation. The Secretary added that the proposed south access is probably not 400 feet from County Road 10 since the north property line of Brookdale Ford, when extended to Shingle Creek Parkway, is roughly that distance. The Secretary also pointed out that there are no provisions in the Zoning Ordinance for compact car spaces and that the Director of Public Works wished to review the proposed access . to the site before making a recommendation on the plan. Chairman Hawes suggested that the Planning Commission table the application for one week and hold a special meeting to review a proposed plan and make a recommendation to the City Council for its meeting on August 25, 1980. Commissioner Simmons stated that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to review plans thoroughly. She pointed out that while the City has been blamed for holding up action on a proposed plan, the plan now under re- view was received only this afternoon and is incomplete. There followed a brief discussion regarding a feasible time for meeting to review the latest plan submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Lucht observed that it will take time to hammer out a final agreement on access to the site with the staff and that it would also take time to prepare a full set of plans to be re- viewed by the Planning Commission. Chairman Hawes asked where the applications stood in regard to the time requirement for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation. . The Secretary answered that the Planning Commission must make a recommendation within 60 days on the proposed plan, unless an extension is re- quested by the applicant, and that if the Planning Commission were to consider the matter on its August 28 , 1980 meeting, it would still be about two weeks away from this deadline. The Director of Public Works suggested that the City Council could be invited to the Planning Commission meeting on August 28, 1980, to observe the evaluation of the plan. Commissioner Malecki insisted that it was necessary for the Plan- ning Commission to review detailed plans and not make a recommenda- tion simply on the basis of a sketch. Chairman Hawes concurred, but added that the Commission would not be opposed to the City Council attending the meeting. Mr. Gustafson asked for as rapid a consideration of the matter as possible. Chairman Hawes assured Mr. Gustafson that the City welcomes new development and in no way wishes to obstruct it. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NOS. 80021, 80022 and 80023 (Commercial Partners) Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Manson to table Application Nos. 80021, 80022 and 80023, preliminary plat, site and building plan and special use permit approval for a shop- ping center-theater-restaurant complex on the property north of 8-14-80 12 Brookdale Ford and east of Shingle Creek Parkway on the ,grounds that the plans presented are insufficient for any recommendation to be made. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Mr. Gustafson asked whether the action taken by the Planning Com- mission indicates that it likes the shopping center on the north side of the site. Chairman Hawes and Commissioner Lucht both responded affirmatively. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. COMPACT CAR PARKING PROVISION. The Secretary stated that a provision for compact cars would pro- bably work in a larger lot, but not a smaller lot. He also noted that the special arrangement for compact cars would allow a slight increase in the density of land development. Chairman Hawes ob- served that compacts were certainly here to stay. Commissioner Erickson stated that Control Data has had provision for compact cars in its parking lot for a number of years and that the arrangement works well. The Director of Public Works pointed out that the success at such an arrangement depends on the ability to police the situation. He stated that an employee lot would be easier to regulate in this regard than a customer parking lot. Commissioner Simmons noted that other cities are acknowledging compact car parking stalls. She asked whether this was because there are more compacts on the road or because it allows developers to meet parking requirements with less land. The Secretary - answered that both reasons were probably behind this trend. After further discussion on compact car stalls, the Secretary in- formed the Commission that a rezoning application had been placed on the August 28, 1980 agenda. Commissioner Lucht stated that he would be unable to attent the August 28 , 1980 meeting as he would be out of town at that time. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Erickson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:46 p.m. Chairman 8-14-80 -13- 1 1