Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 12-11 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 DECEMBER 11, 1980 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7: 34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht and Simmons. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross and Assistant City Engineer Jim Grube. The Secretary pointed out that Com- missioner Erickson had called earlier in the day to say that he would not be able to attend the evening's meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 20, 1980 Commissioner Simmons asked that a sentence in the fourth paragraph of page 4 of the minutes be revised in that it did not express her sentiments accurately. Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve the minutes of the November 20, 1980 meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commis- sioners Theis, Manson and Simmons . Not voting: Commissioner Malecki and Lucht. The motion passed. APPLICATION N0. 80048 (Twenty-Eight Ten, Inc.) Following the Chairman' s explanation, the Secretary in the first item of business; a request for subdivision approval by Twenty-Eight Ten, Inc. to declare a condominium of nine units and one common area at the Brookdale Tower Office Building at 2810 County Road 10. The Secretary reviewed for the Commission, the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Inform- ation Sheet for Application No. 80048 attached) and also reviewed the statutory requirements for contents of ,a declaration for a condominium. Following the Secretary's presentation, Chairman Hawes asked whether each condominium unit in the office building would be entitled to its own sign after the subdivision is accomplished. The Secretary stated that signage is permitted on a building by building basis and would not be any different than now. Com- missioner Theis pointed out that the subdivision requested is without any hard copy of the boundaries of the individual units. The Secretary responded that the existing floor plans were used for preliminary plat of the Beach Condominium complex and that the same is being done in this case. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the existing tenants would become the new owners or whether different tenants would come into the building. The Secretary stated that he assumed the existing tenants would stay in the building, but that ownership of units would probably be in the hands of Health Central or Twenty-Eight Ten, Inc. , a subsidiary of Health Central. The spaces not used by those organizations , he went on, could be leased to existing tenants or perhaps sold to them. In answer to a comment by Commissioner Manson, the Secretary stated that 12-11-80 -l- the City Attorney would probably not find any great difficulties with the declaration or the association by-laws prior to giving his approval. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. He called upon the applicant, represented by Mr. Pat Hennessy, to comment on the application. Mr. Hennessy stated that the pro- vision for flexible condominium would be deleted. He added that no structural changes are intended and therefore there is no need to account for any additions or changes in the association or the declaration. Mr. Hennessy added that the applicant, Twenty Eight Ten, Inc. , intends to satisfy all the conditions and would discuss with the City Attorney any language relating to variances within the declaration. The Secretary explained that one of the concerns behind the lan- guage disclaiming any right to variances under the declaration was the provision for a flexible condominium. The Planning Assistant added that another concern was that the provision within the declaration relating to the City Zoning Ordinance re- stricted uses on the site, but did not address structural re- quirements of the Zoning Ordinance, to which variances are related. Chairman Hawes inquired what would happen if a firm bought a unit within the building and then attempted to bring in doctors or dentists to establish a clinic. The Secretary answered that such a use would be forbidden by the proposed declaration and associ- ation by-laws and that, therefore, no property right exists under the proposed covenant to use the property in any way other than for general office purposes . There followed a brief discussion regarding the provision of park- ing on the site. The Planning Assistant explained that there was presently an excess of perhaps five or ten stalls out of 300 and that, therefore, very little could be done in the way of changing the use or the structure on the site which would require more parking. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Theis, Lucht and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80048 (Twenty-Eight Ten, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend approval of Application No. 80048, a request to subdivide into condominiums the office building at 2810 County Road 10, sub- ject to at least the following conditions : 1. The final subdivision is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final subdivision is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City's Ordinances. 12-11-80 -2- • 3. The Declaration and the Association By-Laws are subject to the review and approval of the City . Attorney prior to final subdivision approval. 4. A copy of the statement of a Minnesota registered architect certifying the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems of the building as shown on the floor plans shall be filed with the Building Official for his review and approval prior to final approval of the subdivision. 5. The Declaration shall be modified to include a specific disclaimer of any variances from the City Zoning Ordinance. 6. The Declaration and the Association By-Laws are subject to the provision of MS515A.1-101 to 515A.4-117 (the Uniform Condominium Act) . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS ' a. Meriwether Restaurant The Secretary next reviewed with the Planning Commission a pro- posed site plan for a Meriwether Restaurant at the southwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway. He stated that the restaurant would have 238 seats and 20 employees re- sulting in a parking requirement of 129 spaces . He pointed out that the proposed plan does meet the parking requirement and briefly reviewed other aspects of the plan. He pointed out that the easterly access onto Freeway Boulevard is 220 feet frpm the roa&tay at Shingle Creek Parkway. He also noted that no access from Shingle Creek Parkway is permitted because the State of Minnesota has purchased access control along Shingle Creek Park- way up to Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary explained that Meriwether has an option for 60 days to purchase the property, but must get approval within that time or else the deal will be off. He explained that the concern over possible delays in January had moved the applicant to request a preliminary review of the site plan as a discussion item by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dave Nelson of Lincoln Properties, representing Meriwether Restaurants, showed the Planning Commission some pictures of other Meriwether Restaurants in Detroit and Chicago. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the shape and style of the building is a trademark for Meriwether Restaurants; that is, whether General Foods had dictated the shape of the building prior to looking at the site. Mr. Nelson responded that the building is attractively designed and can fit within most sites. He also stated that the building would vary slightly from other Meriwether Restaurants already built. He stressed that the restaurant has a homey atmos- phere. 12-11-80 -3- .M The Secretary mentioned that the proposed restaurant is a special use within the I-1 zone and that one of the concerns regarding a special use is - impact on traffic. He pointed out that the res- taurant would be an off-peak traffic generator and might therefore be considered compatible with surrounding uses. Mr. Nelson pointed out that the building would be placed in the center of the site in order to split up the parking lot, rather . than leave one large sea of asphalt to one side of the building. He also mentioned that Meriwether's would be seeking a liquor license. In answer to a question from Chairman Hawes, Mr. Nelson stated that the hours of operation would be 11:00 a.m. to midnight on weekdays and 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. on weekends. Commissioner Manson asked whether breakfast and lunch might be served on - Sundays. Mr. Nelson stated that the company is looking into providing that service. Commissioner Theis noted that the trash enclosure is to be placed along the side of the building facing Freeway Boulevard. Mr. Nelson acknowledged that this presented some problem since the building is a prototype of other Meriwether Restaurants. He did point out, however, that the enclosure around the trash would look just like the rest of the building. Chairman Hawes asked how long the traffic signal-at Freeway Boule- vard and Shingle Creek Parkway would be in place. The Assistant City Engineer answered that the present plan of MN/DOT is to con- tinue for one and one-half 'to two years while the construction is underway on the interchange. He added that at that time the sit- uation would be reviewed again to see if a permanent sign was warranted. There followed a brief discussion regarding access to the site and it was generally agreed that the proposed access is probably as good as can be provided and should be quite adequate. The 1981 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule The Secretary next pointed out that -at least three Commissioners" - terms would expire at the end of 1980, Dan Erickson, Mary Simmons and George Lucht. The meeting schedule for 1981 had not been established he stated, because the City Council's meeting schedule has not been formally adopted. He did notify the Commission that the first meeting of the year would be January 15, and the follow- ing study meeting would be the 29th of January. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Theis to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht and Simmons. Voting against: none. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9 :00 p.m. r airman Y� I 12-11-80 -4-