Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 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 , 1981 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7: 35 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman William Hawes , Commissioners Molly Malecki , Richard Theis , Nancy Manson, George Lucht and Mary Simmons . Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube, and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 11 , 1980 Commissioner Lucht pointed out that no second was noted to the motion to approve Application No . 80048 and requested the staff to determine who made that motion and enter it into the minutes . Motion by Com- missioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Lucht to approve the minutes of the December 11 , 1980 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki , Theis , Manson, Lucht and Simmons . The motion passed. ADJOURN 1980 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Theis to adjourn the 1980 Planning Commission . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki , Theis , Manson, Lucht and Simmons . The motion passed. The 1980 Planning Commission adjourned at 7: 37 p.m. OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary pointed out that Commissioners Lucht and Simmons had been reappointed to the Commission and that it was not necessary that the oath of office be again administered. He also noted that a vacan- cy may likely exist for Commissioner Erickson's seat and that a repre- sentative of the Central Neighborhood would be preferable in filling that vacancy . CALL TO ORDER 1981 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1981 Planning Commission met in re.gu'ar session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7: 39 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman William Hawes , Commissioners Molly Malecki , Richard Theis , Nancy Manson, George Lucht and Mary Simmons . Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross . ELECTION OF 1981 PLANNING CO111.'ISSION CHAIRMAN Chairman Hawes opened the floor for nominations to chair the 1981 Planning Commission . Commissioner. Theis nominated William Hawes to a second term as Planning Commission Chairman . The nomination was seconded by Commissioner rlaleck.i . There were no other nominations . CLOSE NOMINATIONS Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to 1-15-81 -1- close nominations . Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Manson, Lucht and Simmons . Not voting: Chairman Hawes . The motion passed. Voting in favor of William Hawes as Chairman of the 1981 Planning Commission: Commissioners Malecki , Theis , Manson, Lucht and Simmons. Voting against: none . Not voting: William Hawes . William Hawes was elected 1981 Planning Commission Chairman . ELECTION OF 1981 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PRO TEM Chairman Hawes next opened the meeting for nominations of Chairman Pro Tem. Commissioner Malecki nominated George Lucht to be Planning Commission Chairman Pro Tem for 1981 . The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Manson. There were no other nominations . CLOSE NOMINATIONS Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the nominations . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki , Theis , Manson and Simmons . Not voting: Commissioner Lucht . The motion passed. Voting in favor of George Lucht as Planning Commission Chairman Pro Tem for 1981 : Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki , Theis , Manson and Simmons . Voting against: none . Not voting: Commissioner Lucht . George Lucht was elected Planning Commission Chairman Pro Tem for 1981 . REQUEST TO TABLE APPLICATION NO. 81009 (Thomas Wilhelmy./Conoco Following the Chairman 's explanation, the Secretary pointed out to the Commission that the appellant for Application- No . 81009 was present and wished to speak to the Planning Commission before other business was taken up. Mr. Tom. Wilhelmy, representing Conoco and Ernst, Lane and Ernst addressed the Planning Commission and requested that it table Application No . 81009 until the January 29 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the issues involved in the appeal were complex, and to consider them late in the evening when the application would come up, would not help the Planning Commission make a sound judgment . Chairman Hawes responded that he was quite willing to stay and consider the application and felt that this would be the best course of action . Mr. Wilhelmy explained that any delay to a later meeting would not be held against the Planning Commission 's deadline to consider the application and make a recom- mendation within 30 days of the appeal 's referral to the Commission. Chairman Hawes then polled the Planning Commission . Commissioner Theis stated that he was not absolutely opposed to postponing the application, but that he did not agree with the idea of taking the last item of the agenda off simply to put it on another agenda . Commissioner Malecki stated she had no opposition to postponing the application . The Secretary explained that the reason the application was placed last on the agenda was simply because it was the last application to be received. Commissioner Simmons stated that she was not opposed to tabling the application . Commissioners Lucht and Manson, however, both expressed a strong opposition to tabling the application and recommended considering the appeal at that meeting. Chairman Hawes stated that the judgment of the Planning Commission was to stay and consider the application . APPLICATION NO. 81001 (Federal Lumber) The Secretary introduced the first item of business , request for site and building plan approval to construct a 49 ,000 gross sq., ft . 1-15-81 -2- office-warehouse and three accessory open .storage sheds at 4810 North Lilac Drive . The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Appli- cation No. 81001 attached) . The Secretary also reviewed with the Planning Commission , the building elevations proposed and explained, regarding drainage improvements , that a major storm sewer project involving other properties in the area would be required to justify certain drainage control investments by Federal Lumber. The Secre- tary also stated to the Planning Commission that there is no plan at present by the Highway Department to extend Lilac Drive across the Soo Line tracks to connect with Lilac Drive north of the Soo Line . Commissioner Theis inquired as to how two "buildings" were created out of a single open storage shed along the west side of the site . The Secretary explained that a one hour fire rated wall down the middle of the shed would classify the space on either side of the wall as a separate building under the State Building Code . Each of these "buildings" , he said, would be less than 2,000 sq. ft . in area and would, therefore, not be required to be fire sprinklered in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city Ordinances . Chairman Hawes asked whether there was any thought of painting the exterior of the building in light of the fact that during the fabri- cation process, the concrete block would fade somewhat and leave inconsistencies of color throughout the building. The Secretary answered that the exterior of the building would be a decorative block similar to that used in the Industrial Park. APPLICATION NO . 81002. (Federa-l. Lumber) The Secretary then introduced a companion application, a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into one lot , the four tracts of land presently- occupied by the Federal Lumber operation . The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No . 81002 attached) and reviewed the suggested conditions of approval . The Assistant City Engineer noted a fence surrounding the property which encroaches onto the Soo Line property by a couple of feet along the north property line . Mr . Herb Margolis , representing Federal Lumber, stated that the fence had been in that location for a number of years and that no dispute had arisen between Federal Lumber and the railroad. He stated that if any dispute arose , the fence would be moved. In response to a question from Chairman Hawes regarding the reluctance to sprinkle the storage sheds , Mr. Sam Rosenbaum, President of Federal Lumber, explained that the cost of sprinkling such buildings would be extremely high and that he was unaware that such sheds had ever been required to be sprinkled anywhere in the past . He stated his intent to meet code requirements by constructing one hour rated fire walls at appropriate points within the storage sheds so as to make each occupied space less than 2 ,000 sq . ft . Chairman Hawes asked whether Mr. Rosenbaum had any object to installing smoke detectors in the storage sheds . Mr . Rosenbaum answered that the existing storage sheds are already equipped with such detectors and that the new sheds will have heat and smoke detectors . 1-15-81 -3 In response to a question from Commissioner Theis regarding the large nonconforming sign on the Soo Line property , Mr. Rosenbaum stated that he had no objection to removing that sign prior to erecting any new signs . Chairman Hawes inquired if any one else wished to be heard regarding Application No . 81002 . There being none, he called for a motion to close the hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Simmons to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No . 81002 . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Manson, Lucht and Simmons . Voting against : none . The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81001 (Federal Lumber) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No . 81001 , a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 41,056 sq. ft . office-warehouse building and three accessory. open storage sheds at 4810 North Lilac Drive, 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. 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 to assure completion of approved site improvements . 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechan- ical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5 . All new buildings over 2,000 sq. ft will 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 . Smoke detectors shall be installed in all accessory structures per the direction of the Fire Chief. 7. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance . 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances . 9 . B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all driving and parking areas used by the general public. 10 . The plans shall be modified to indicate the following: 1-15-81 -4- a . All new buildings over 2,000 sq. ft . in floor area shall be fire sprinklered in accordance with NFPA Standard No . 13 . b. A landscaping schedule showing sizes and quantities of plantings shall be added in accordance with Planning Commission direction . 11 . The applicant shall enter into a standard utility maintenance agreement with the City . 12 . Plan approval acknowledges the enlargement of the greenstrip adjacent to Highway 100 right-of-way to the ordinance required 15 ' rather than the 5 ' which presently serves as boulevard for Lilac Drive . The rolled bituminious curb shall be replaced with B612 curb and gutter at the new location . 13. The final plat shall be approved by the City Council and be filed with the County prior to the issuance of building permits . 14 . Plan approval acknowledges a "proof-of-parking" that meets ordinance requirements . If it is determined that the installed parking proves inadequate, the City may require the installation of any or all of the deferred parking indicated on the site plan . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Theis , Manson, Lucht and Simmons . Voting against : none . The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81002 (Federal Lumber) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No . 81002 , a request for pre- liminary plat approval to combine into one parcel all of the land occupied by Federal Lumber and comprehending a redefinition of the North Lilac Drive right-of-way, subject to the following con- ditions : 1 . The final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2 . The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances . 3. Prior to consideration by the City Council , the final plat shall be modified to indicate a 90 ft . diameter cul-de-sac at the southwest corner of the site per City Engineer recommendation and the vacation of the existing North Lilac Drive right- of-way. 4 . The applicant shall grant the City a utility easement over the existing North Lilac Drive and shall enter into a standard utility maint- enance agreement with the City . 1-15-81 -5- 5 . The applicant shall grant the City an access easement over the middle driveway leading to the parking area on Highway 100 right-of-way to allow City maintenance vehicles to turn around in said area. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki , Theis , Manson, Lucht and Simmons . Voting against : none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81003 (Meriwether Restaurants) The Secretary introduced the next item of business , a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 238 seat restaurant on the parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No . 81003 attached) . The Secretary also noted the uniform treatment of the exterior of the building. Chairman Hawes inquired who would pay for the cost of installing a new hydrant at the easterly entrance . The Secretary stated that the property owner would bear the cost of that improvement . In answer to a question. from Chairman Hawes regarding sidewalk along Freeway Boulevard, the Secretary stated that a sidewalk serving the site in question is not included in the City 's master plan for sidewalks . He added, however, that it may be in order to have a sidewalk project in order to connect the sidewalk along Freeway Boulevard east of Shingle Creek Parkway with the Shingle Creek trai. i. 7ag . Chairman Hawes asked whether the City staff would pursue a sidewalk project in that area . The Secretary , while aknowledging the merits of such a project , stated that he could not make a com- mitment to the Planning Commission at this time. Commissioner Simmons suggested that the Planning Commission recommend such a sidewalk as part of their site plan approval . Commissioner Theis asked whether sidewalks within public right-of- way have been required as a part of development approval in the past . The Secretary responded that to his knowledge they have not been . The Assistant City Engineer also noted that the bridge on Freeway Boulevard over Shingle Creek has sidewalk only on the north side; so any sidewalk by this proposal would deadend at the bridge . The Assistant City Engineer explained that a sidewalk could be installed as a City project , a private project, or a project petitioned by property owners . There followed a discussion regarding the options for financing such a sidewalk and of the benefits offered by such a sidewalk . Commissioner Simmons pointed out that those who would benefit most would be the restaurant and the transient customers at the motels across Shingle Creek Parkway . Chairman Hawes noted that people who work in the Industrial Park will also benefit by the same sidewalk . In response to a. question from Chairman Hawes , the Assistant City Engineer stated that the 220 ft . separation between Shingle Creek Parkway and the easterly entrance to the restaurant is minimally acceptable with peak hour traffic volumes on Freeway Boulevard. 1-15-81 -�- PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. He Inquired of Mr. Dave Nelson, representing Meriwether Restaurants , Inc. as to the type of entertainment proposed. Mr. Nelson explained that the music provided at the restaurant was more background music than entertainment as such . He explained that this music would not be in connection with dancing and that local talent would be brought in. Chairman Hawes stated that he wished to pin down the precise nature of the entertainment and how often it would be provided. The Secretary suggested that Condition No . 6 relating to live enter- tainment on the premises be expanded to cover the concerns of the Commission CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Following further discussion of the sidewalk issue, there was a motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Com- missioners Malecki , Theis, Lucht and Simmons . Voting against : none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81003 (Meriwether Restaurants) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Lucht to recommend approval of Application No . 81003, a request for site and building plan approval and a special use permit to construct a 238 seat restaurant on the parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard and offering live entertainment, subject to at least 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 . 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 a-mount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements 4. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable . 5. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, regulations and violation thereof, shall be grounds for revocation. 6. The special use permit acknowledges light live entertainment such as a piano player, guitarist, or roving minstrels for background music, but does not comprehend bands , dancing, etc. which will require an additional special use permit . 7. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 1-15-81 -7- 8. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard's and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 9 . An underground irrigation system shall be .installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 10 . Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 11 . B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all driving and parking areas . 12 . The plans shall be modified to indicate a fire hydrant at the easterly entrance on Freeway Boulevard. 13. The plans shall comprehend a sidewalk to provide pedestrian access to this site from adjacent sidewalks. The staff is directed to prepare a report and recom- mendation to the City Council regarding whether" the City 's sidewalk network should be expanded to include sidewalk along the southerly Freeway Boulevard right- of-way. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Lucht and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81004 (Meriwether Restaurants , Inc.) Following discussion of the plat there was a motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Appli- cation No. 81004, a request for preliminary R.L.S. approval establish- ing new boundaries for the parcel of land at the southwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard following highway taking, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The final R.L.S. is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 2 . The final R.L .S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances . 3. Building permits will not be issued until the R.L.S. is finaled and filed with the County . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Manson, Lucht and Simmons . Voting against : none . The motion passed. APPLICATION `>NO. 81005 (Lisa Rogers Carter) 4 The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for a special use permit to conduct a home beauty shop in the basement of the residence at 5308 Humboldt Avenue North . The Secretary re- viewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No . 81005 attached) . 1-15-81 -8- PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. He asked the applicant whether she had anything to add to the Se.cre- tary ' s report . She replied in the negative . In response to questions from Commissioner Theis , the applicant stated that she had ample room in her driveway for four cars and that the operation would involve only one chair in the basement . Commissioner Lucht asked the applicant whether she felt the hours of operation acknowledged in the staff report were reasonable . She agreed that they were . The Secretary sought a clarification that the work would be done on an appointment only basis . The applicant stated that was her intent . There was a discussion of whether to limit the actual numbers of hours worked within a week to 20 even though the work could occur within a 47 hour weekly schedule . The Planning Assistant pointed out that restricting the number of hours actually worked would be difficult to monitor and recommended that only the times that service may be offered be included in the conditions for the special use permit . CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki , Theis , Manson, Lucht and Simmons . Voting against : none . The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION N0 . 81005 (Lisa Rogers Carter) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner ma for to recommend approval of Application No . 81005 , a request for a special use permit for a home beauty shop in the basement of the residence at 5308 Humboldt Avenue North , subject to the following conditions : 1 . The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable . 2 . The permit is subject to applicable codes, ordi- nances and regulations and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation . 3. A copy of the applicant ' s current State operator 's license shall be kept on file with the City . 4 . All parking associated with the special use shall be off-street on space provided by the applicant . 5 . The hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday , noon to 8 :00 ,p.m. and Saturday 9 : 00 a .m. to 4:00 p.m. Service shall be provided on an appointment only basis . 6 . The applicant shall install a fire extinguisher in the beauty shop room and shall separate that room from other areas of the basement with a curtain or door. 1-15-81 -9- 7. The applicant shall correct all remodeling and electrical work in the basement area which does not meet code requirements prior to the issuance of the special use permit . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki , Theis , Manson, Lucht and Simmons. Voting against: none . The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9 :43 p.m. and resumed at 10:03 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 81006 (R an Oldsmobile) Following the recess, the Secretary introduced the next item of business, an application by Ryan Oldsmobile for site and building plan approval and a special use permit to build a used car sales office and a Mazda sales office on the site at 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff re- port concerning the application (See Planning Commission Informa- tion Sheet for Application No . 81006 attached) . The Secretary also noted that similar applications from Ryan Oldsmobile have been before the Planning Commission in 1978 and 1979 . PUBLIC HEARING Following the staff report, Chairman Hawes opened the meeting for a public hearing. Commissioner Theis asked Mr. Dick Schoen of Ryan Oldsmobile to describe the buildings proposed. Mr. Schoen stated that the dealership is looking at an existing building to be moved on the site for used car sales . The Mazda sales office would resemble the existing office in all respects . In response to a question from Commissioner Theis regarding light pollution, the Secretary stated he was unaware of any complaints regarding spillaver of light from the site . In response to a question from Commissioner Theis, Mr. Schoen and another representative of Ryan Oldsmobile explained that the layout of cars on the site always allows cars to be taken out wi-thout moving other cars and that the stock of used cars , Oldsmobiles , and Mazdas would change continually. Chairman Hawes asked whether there were any other comments on the application from other people present. There being none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Com- missioners Malecki , Manson, Theis, Lucht and Simmons . Voting against : none . The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81006 (Bob Ryan Oldsmobile) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend approval of Application No . 81006 , a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a used car sales office and a Mazda sales office , each connected to the existing sales building by a canopy at 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard, subject to the following conditions : 1-15-81 -10- 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official prior to the issuance of permits . 2 . The two upper floors and the new sales offices shall be equipped with an automatic fire ex- tinguishing system in accordance with NFPA Standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances . 3 . The special use permit as amended is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable . 4 . The permit is subject to all applicable codes , ordinances , regulations and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation . 5 . Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of the Sign ordinance . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki , Theis , Manson, Lucht and Simmons . Voting against : none . The motion passed. APPLICATION No. 81007 (Ryan ConseructionlByerly 's) The Secretary reviewed the next application submitted by Ryan Construction on behalf of Byerly 's , Inc. to construct a 90 ,000 sq. ft . retail food store including a 200 seat restaurant at 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway . The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No . 81007 attached) . The Secretary also pointed out the possible locations for the trash enclosures at the north- east and southeast corners of the building. He stated that the staff recommended the trash enclosure at the northeast corner of the building to be placed along the north wall . Chairman Hawes inquired whether the permanent curbing around Tract B would be deferred until a development is proposed for that location . The Secretary answered that the applicant intends to, in- stall permanent curb during the initial construction of the project . He pointed out that since construction of the Byerly 's Store is probably over a year away, it is likely that a development for Tract B will be comprehended by the time construction begins . In answer to a .question from Commissioner Theis , the Assistant City Engineer stated that sidewalks will exist along the north side of Summit Drive and along the north side of John Martin Drive , but not along the south side of Summit Drive . He stated that side- walk would also exist along both sides of Shingle Creek Parkway . APPLICATION NO. 81008 (Rican Construction/Byerly 's) The Secretary next reviewed the staff report for the proposed R.L.S. for the Byerly 's site . The proposed R .L.S . would combine into two parcels the land now divided into six parcels at the southeast corner of Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway (See Planning Com- mission Information Sheet for Application No . 81008 attached) . 1--15-81 -11- Following the presentation of the staff report , Commissioner Simmons noted the larger size parking stalls provided on the . plan and asked whether this was typical for other Byerly 's operations . Mr. Jeff Rice , representing Ryan Construction and in turn, Byerly 's Foods , answered that the wider stalls are a personal preference of Mr. Byerly himself. Commissioner Simmons asked for the City staff's reaction . The Secretary responded that the land area available is adequate to meet the ordinance for parking spaces at 818" stalls . Should the proposed parking plan become inadequate , he said, the City could require that smaller stalls be striped so that more would fit on the lot . In response to questions from Commissioners Lucht and Theis, Mr. Rice stated that the proposed store may be scaled down from 90,000 to 70 ,000 sq. ft . , in which case Tract B would be enlarged before the plat would be filed. Commissioner Theis asked whether it is better to drain the site toward the middle or toward the edge . The Assistant City Engineer stated that it is better to gather the water first and then dis- tribute it through storm sewer line . Commissioner Simmons inquired what the effect of reducing the size of the store to 70 ,000 sq. ft . would have on the services . Mr. Jeff Rice answered that the same services would be offered, only there would be less space per item. There followed a discussion of the location of the trash compactor and whether a gate should be required to screen the open end of the enclosure from public view. Mr. Rice stated that gates typically become damaged and difficult to maintain . He also noted that trash is fed from the compactor directly from the building. Chairman Hawes and Commissioner Malecki stated concern regarding precedent that might be set by allowing the compactor not to be screened on one side . Commissioner Theis had some concerns , but added, however, that he could accept the enclosure without a gate on the under- standing that this treatment would only apply to compactors which are fed directly from the building and, for the most part, are adequately screened. Commissioners Manson, Lucht and Simmons all stated they could accept the enclosure without the gate . By con- sensus , the Planning Commission accepted the enclosure without a gate, to be located on the north side of the building, on the basis that the compactor is fed directly from the inside of the building and is adequately screened. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Com- missioners Malecki , Theis, Manson, Lucht and Simmons . Voting against: none . The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81007 (Ryan Construction/Byerly 's) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to recommend approval of Application No . 81007, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 90,000 sq. ft . food store with a 200 seat restaurant at 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway, subject to the following conditions : 1-15-81 -12- 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, 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 to assure completion of approved site improvements . 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 de- vice 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 driving and parking areas . 9 . Plan approval acknowledges a "proof of parking" meeting ordinance requirements . Should it be de- termined in the future that installed parking is insufficient to meet the public demand, the City may require installation of additional parking stalls (or restriping) to achieve the Ordinance requirement of 623 spaces . 10 . The proposed R .L.S. shall have received final approval from the City Council and filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki , Theis , Manson, Lucht and Simmons . Voting against : none . The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING 'APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81008 (Ryan Construction/Byerly `s) Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No . 81008, a request for pre- liminary R.L.S. approval to create two parcels of land west and north of LaBelle `s , north of John Martin Drive , east of Shingle Creek Parkway, south of Summit Drive , subject to the following conditions : 1 . The final plat is subject to the approval of the City Engineer 1-15-81 -13- 2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 . 3. An easement across the southeasterly edge of Tract B shall be filed with the final R .L.S. to provide access from John Martin Drive to the Byerly 's Store . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki , Theis , Manson, Lucht and Simmons . Voting against : none . The motion passed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS APPLICATION NO. 81009 (Tom Wilhelmy/Conoco) The Secretary introduced the last item of business, an appeal from the Secretary 's decision not to accept an application for a special use permit to construct a convenience store at the north- east corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question abuts Rl zoned land at a property line and across June Avenue North, conditions which prohibit a gas station use on C2 zoned property . The Secretary reviewed the staff report concerning the application (See Planning Commission Information. Sheet No . 81009 attached) . Following the presentation of the staff report , Chairman Hawes called on the applicant to make any comments he wished. Mr. Wil- helmy reviewed with the Planning Commission , a drawing of the area in which the Western Store Gas Station would be located. He pointed out that the land in question is not located in a quiet , residential neighborhood, but is located along Brooklyn Boulevard which is highly commercial . He showed a survey of the area and commented that the market value of the land and the structures was presently $80 ,000 and that taxes generated by the property are presently $3,000 . Mr. Wilhelmy showed a conceptual site plan to the Planning Com- mission and stated that there would be three sets of gasoline pumps located on the side of the site located away from the residential neighborhood. He also stated that Conoco would be willing to screen the pumps from the residential area . Mr. Wilhelmy explained that Conoco plans to invest $450,000 in the project, including the cost of the land . This investment, he stated, would bring the market value of the property up to roughly $250,000, thus tripling the amount of taxes derived from the land. Mr. Wilhelmy objected to the point made by the Secretary that he was employing a broad brush approach in his arguments .. He stated that in his opinion, the Secretary was , in fact, using a broad brush by dismissing the application for a special use permit . Mr. Wilhelmy differentiated his Proposed special use permit appli- cation with the application sought by Howe Fertilizer and appealed under Application No. 79037 . He pointed out that a later appli- cation was made and that information regarding the site was event- ually given to the Planning Commission in that case . He stated that Conoco is faced with one man who thinks he can deny the appli- cation from being made to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wilhelmy stressed to the Planning Commission that the case before them was not a law school , test tube case, but that a decision regarding the proposed Western Store must be based on 1-15-81 -14- the facts surrounding it and not on literal interuptions of the ordinance . He went on to state that the definition of the gas station adopted by the City in 1957 does not necessarily compre- hend the nature of a gas station today . He argued that it would be inappropriate for the Planning Commission and City Council to adopt the reasoning that "a gas station is a gas station is a gas station" . Regarding the case of Southland Corporation v. Minneapolis , Mr. Wilhelmy stated that the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court in that case only said that it was reasonable for Minneapolis to classify the 7 Eleven gas pumps as a service station, that it did not require that Brooklyn Center so classify such uses . Mr. Wilhelmy also pointed out to the Planning Commission that Conoco has received an allocation from the Federal Government to pump 1 . 4 million gallons of gasoline per year at the site in question . He argued that the community definitely needs this gasoline . Mr. Wilhelmy commented that the question before the Planning Com- mission is whether the image of a gas station as presented in Section 35-414 of the Zoning Ordinance really comprehends the Western Store use . He stated that gas stations existing at the time of the adoption of 35-414 obviously had negative impacts and these were the type of gas stations the ordinance sought to control . Mr. Wilhelmy stated that the Planning Commission 's job is to in- terpret the Zoning Ordinance and he pointed to Section 35-322 of that ordinance which allows the sale of groceries and the sale of auto accessories and other uses similar in nature within the C2 zoning district . Mr. Wilhelmy stated that even if the Western Store is to be con- sidered a gas 4tation as opposed to the retail sale of groceries and auto accessories, the Zoning Ordinance under Section 35-414:11 does allow for the Western Store store to come in . He stated that the nonconforming use provisions of the ordinance allow existing uses to continue and that Section 35-414 :3 and 11 allow for gas stations to make additions , alterations , build accessory buildings , and erect signs. He noted that these allowances are contrary to the nonconforming use provisions of Section 35-111 which , he argued, do not apply in this case . Mr. Wilhelmy argued that the Zoning Ordinance allows for change, to take place and is intended to be interpreted flexibly . He stated that the Western Store was not intended to be prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance . He concluded his arguments by stating that the proposed use would benefit the community by adding tax base and also that the pro- posed use fits within the general plan for the area which calls for continued commercial use . Following Mr. Wilhelmy 's presentation , Commissioner Simmons noted that the ordinance prohibits gas stations from abutting R1 , R2 or R3 property even across a street . She noted that the appellant does not wish to be considered a service station , yet plans to sell 1 . 4 million gallons of gasoline per year. Commissioner Lucht acknowledged that some of the obnoxious aspects of a gas station 1-15-81 -15- would not be present in the Western Store . But , he added, the ordinance is regulating gasoline stations not simply by trying to reduce some of their problem aspects , but also by limiting where they can be located. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that the traffic associated with the gasoline service station use is much heavier than simply for a small convenience store . Mr. Wilhelmy disagreed and stated that the community needs the gasoline to be provided at that station. Commissioner Lucht asked why that was true if there are so many gas stations closing and redeveloping into something else . Mr . Ken Ingram of Western Stores stated that the reason many service stations go out of business is that the mix of services they offer do not allow them to break even . Commissioner Lucht stated that in his opinion June Avenue North should be shut off from intersecting with 69th Avenue North and that access off Brooklyn Boul.evard or 69th Avenue North would probably not be recommended. due to the fact that such an access would be too close to the intersection . The Planning Assistant then reminded the commission the sub- ject of the application before them was an App regarding the interpretation of the ordinance and that whether or not the staff's -interpretation of the ordinance was correct . A review of a site plan and the merits of a special use permit was inappropriate in light of the application before the Commission . He explained that the primary reason for the application is that the proposed site of the development abuts RZ zoned property at a street line , if not at a property line . He pointed out that this constitutes a zoning violation , according to the staff's interpretation . Commissioner Simmons stated that no matter which way the ordinance was interpreted, the proposed use cannot abut Rl property across the street and, therefore , is not permitted. Commissioner Lucht also pointed out that the authority of the Secretary to deny an application when basic ordinance requirements are not met was upheld in the past and he felt rightfully so . ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO . 81009 (Tom WilhelmylConoco) Commissioner Lucht offered a motion to recommend denial of Appli- cation No . 81009 , an appeal from the ruling of the Secretary not to accept an application for a special use permit to construct a convenience storelgas station at the northeast corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. Once this motion is made, Chairman Hawes stated that he would accept no more than three minutes of further comments from anyone before a vote would be taken on the matter. Mr. Wilhelmy asked whether the Planning Commission has the ultimate authority to interpret the Zoning Ordinance . The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission is an advisory body and that the City Council makes all final decisions . He agreed that the Planning Com- mission has an important role in making recommendations regarding interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance . In answer to another question from Mr. Wilhelmy , the Secretary stated that if the City Council upheld the appeal and .made a finding that the proposed use could be permitted on the site, then an application for a special 1-15-81 -16- use permit and other appropriate applications should be filed, would be accepted, and the normal process of gaining zoning approval would be pursued. lie added that a finding by the City Council in favor of the appellant on this application would not necessarily constitute an approval of the special use permit . Mr. Wilhelmy told the Planning Commission that there were three ways in which the proposed use could be interpreted as having the right to build on the property . 1 . The use can be found not to be a gas station . 2 . The use can be found not to be subject to the provisions of Section 35-111 of the Zoning Ordinance . 3. The gas pumps can be located on a separate parcel of property . The Secretary stated that the option of placing gas pumps on a separate parcel is not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance since a single use must be located on a single parcel . The Planning Commissioners then gave their respective views of the situation . Commissioner Manson stated that she considered the use a service station, that the ordinance does not allow such use at the location in question , and that the Secretary is correct in not accepting an application for a special use permit . Commissioner Malecki agreed with these comments and stated that the Secretary 's role is precisely to inform people whether something is allowed or not . She added that if his interpretation is disputed, the proper way to proceed is by an Appeal through the Planning Commission to the City Council . Commissioner Theis stated that the Western Store is a service station, in his opinion; that the change proposed is not a continuation of a grandfathered situation; that the use would, in fact, be a new zoning violation . He stated that he felt the Secretary was correct in not accepting the application . He added that there may be merit in a special ordinance classifi- cation for the use in question , but that under the existing ordi- nance, the application should not be processed. He stressed that the process of putting the Western Store gas station on the site must start with an ordinance change . Chairman Hawes expressed the opinion that 69th and Brooklyn Boule- vard is a poor location for the proposed use . He also stated that the ordinance definition for a gas station does include uses which pump gas without performing other services related to automobiles . He stated that abutment with R1 zoned property would exist at a street line and possibly at a property line which is strictly pro- hibited by the Zoning Ordinance . He also noted that the existing Comprehensive Plan calls for a public use or apartments at the location in question . No mention of a gas station at that corner is made in the current Comprehensive Plan . He went on to state that the new Comprehensive Plan accepts the development of the property for a retail use, but also stresses the need for a limited access onto Brooklyn Boulevard which would not really be feasible in the case of the proposed use . 1-15-81 -17- RESTATEMENT OF ACTION DENYING APPLICATION NO. 81009 (Tom Wilhelmy/ Conoco) Commissioner Lucht repeated his motion to recommend denial of the application . Commissioner Lucht stated that his motion is made in three respects: 1 . The Secretary does have authority to not accept an application that does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance . 2 . The proposed use is a gasoline service station as defined by the Zoning Ordinance and approval of a special use would be a zoning violation. 3 . The existing gasoline service station is not exempt from the nonconforming use provisions of Section 35-111 prohibiting the use from being moved to another part of the parcel of land or to be expanded beyond its existing premises . The motion and the acknowledgement was seconded by Commissioner Theis . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki , Theis , Manson, Lucht and Simmons . Voting against : none . The motion passed unanimously . OTHER BUSINESS The ,Secretary briefly reviewed with the Planning Commission upcoming business items and the proposed meeting schedule for 1981 . ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission . Voting in favor: . Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Manson, Lucht and Simmons . The motion passed unanimously . The Planning Commission • adjourned at 12:50 a .m. Chairman 1-15-81 -18-