Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 08-11 PCM MINUTES OF T1tE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 11, 1983 CITY HALL - CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular. session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas and Carl Sandstrom. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 4, 1983 Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the August 4, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sandstrom. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 83042 AND 83043 (RobertiiD-. Welty) - Following the Chairman's explanation, the.Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots the parcel of land at the southwest quadrant of Xerxes Avenue North and I-94 and also a request for a variance from Section 15-106 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a lot with an average depth of 110' and another lot with less than 60' of frontage. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 83042 and 83043 attached). Commissioner Simmons pointed out that if the property were divided into two lots, it-would be possible for Lot 1 to have 60' of frontage. She asked whether the southerly lot would still- need a variance for lot depth. The Secretary stated that that was likely. Commissioner Simmons concluded that if there were only two lots, a variance would still be required. The Secretary agreed. He stated that the Planning Commission should evaluate what is a reasonable subdivision of the property in question. He pointed out that the lots all meet the area requirement and that area is probably the most important single requirement to be met. He stated that a case could be made for three or for two lots. Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt three lots was a reasonable subdivision of the property. Com- missioner Sandstrom pointed out that Lot 1 is already very large and would be even larger if the property were subdivided .into two lots. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Jeff Lindgren of Hedlund Engineering, representing Mr. 'Welty, stated that he had no problems with the con- ditions recommended for the approval of the plat. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the applicant was willing to pay the cost of the road improvement. Mr. Jeff Lindgren answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the buildings shown on the preliminary plat we-re actual .plans. for construction or just comcepts. Mr. Lindgren answered that Mr. Welty would probably build the houses as shown on the preliminary plat. Commissioner Simmons asked how large the houses were. f4r. Lindgren answered that the houses were of the average size. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 83042 and 83043) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting fora public hearing on both the preliminary plat and the variance applications: He asked whether anyone present wished to 8-11-83 -1- % speak on the applications. Mr. Robert. Seim, of 3000-66th Avenue North, asked how the hill on Xerxes Avenue North would be maintained once the property is developed. He pointed out that it is maintained by the City at present. The Assistant City Engineer stated that the City would continue to maintain that slope. In response to another question from Mr. Seim, the Secretary pointed out the alignment of the driveway for Lot 1. The Assistant-City Engineer pointed out that the street would be widened to the east. He explained that the driveway coming from Lot 1 should not be aligned with the street, confusing motorists that might be traveling northward on the old Xerxes Avenue street to drive up into the driveway. He stated that the driveway should be close to a 900 angle with the street. Mr. Seim asked how wide the NSP easement was. The Secretary pointed out that the easement is 55.5' wide on Lot 1 and 35.5' wide on-Lots 2 and 3 -because some of the easement goes over public right-of-way. Mr. Eric Persson, of 3001-66th Avenue North, "stated that he felt the property in question was simply not suitable for. three lots. He stated that he thought the proposal was ludicrous and that the Planning Commissioners should view the property ' in person. Chairman Lucht stated that he had seen the property firsthand and asked Mr. Persson how large his lot was. After some discussion, it was determined Mr. Persson's lot was larger than the average lot in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Persson asked about the size of the houses that would be put on these lots. Commissioner Ainas stated that the square footage of the proposed house on Lot 3 was about 1,030 sq. ft. , exclusive of garage, i.f the drawing was scaled accurately. Mr. Persson stated that people were told that the property was .unbuildable. He stated that he would have bought the property if he had realized this many lots could - -be created. Commissioner Sandstrom pointed out that a 30' street would be installed to serve these lots. He stated that this was normal street and asked how Mr. Persson was affected by such an arrangement. Mr. Persson stated that the property in question was simply not suitable for three houses. Chairman Lucht and Commissioner Simmons both pointed out that the proposed lots were larger in area than the average size lot in Brooklyn Center. ' Commissioner Simmons reminded Mr. Persson that his lot was much larger than the average lot and. that most lots.would look smaller by comparison. Chairman Lucht stated that he felt the owner of the property has a right to develope the land. Mr. Persson stated that people living in the area also have a right to object to the granting of a variance. Chairman Lucht read the Standards for a Variance to those present and asked if the proposed subdivision would be injurious to neighboring property. Mr. Persson answered in the affirmative. Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by -Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that one of the lots would require a variance even if there were only two lots in the subdivision_ . She stated that the property would have to be limited to one lot if no variances were to be granted. She stated that she felt that one lot-for this much land (33,000 sq. ft. ) was unreasonable. Com- missioner Sandstrom also pointed out that such a. lot would be much larger than most people want. Mr. Seim, of 3006-66th Avenue North, stated that the best thing to do with the .property was to make a park out of it for the kids. He stated that he had been told by someone at City Hall that the property is unbuildable. The Secretary stated that the City Council had already looked at the property for possible acquisition and had rejected- the possibility. The Planning Assistant stated that 8-11-83 -2 he had probably talked to Mr. Seim. He -pointed out that property, under its present legal description as an Outlot, was unbuildable by definition. He stated that-he°had told people who inquired about the lot that the burden of proof to show that the property is buildable would be on the owner. He explained that he had never talked to 14r. Welty and that Mr. Welty had gone ahead and shown that the property was indeed buildable. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83043 (Robert D. Welty) Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No.- 83043 on the grounds that the Standards for a Subdivision Ordinance Variance are met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83042 (Robert D. Welty) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 83042, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City stipulating the widening of "old" Xerxes to a full street width and extension of public utilities to the respective lots. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sand- strom. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 83045, 83046 and 83047 (Ramada In6/A1 Beisner) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building . plan approval and special use permit- approval to construct a 13 storey, 174 room hotel on a proposed tract- of land at the northeast corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek. The Secretary reviewed the -contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83045 attached) . The Secretary also noted that the applicant had submitted a traffic study to the Engineering Department sometime previously which showed that there would be no major traffic conflicts posed by the master plan for the area. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he agreed with the recommendations of the staff substituting sod in the interior greenstrip. areas. He asked if any plantings would be planted in those areas. The Secretary answered that the staff have no problem with rock in the internal medians, but that sod is recommended around the perimeter of the site. He stated that plantings were scheduled in those areas. Chairman Lucht asked whether the parking on the off-site accessory parking lot would be dedicated to the hotel use. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. The Secretary then showed the breakdown of parking spaces to be dedicated to various uses. around the central parking lot. -The Secretary then reviewed the staff report for Application No. 83046 (Planning Commission Information Sheet attached). The Assistant City Engineer added that some of the items in his memo had already been taken care of. He explained that the subdivision agreement would establish a package for the completion of improve- ments on and off the site. i11-83 -3- Commission Manson asked whether the area within the proposed R.L.S. was a single parcel under Application No. 82004. The Secretary reviewed the area of land covered in the R.L.S. proposed under Application No. 82004 and explained that the proposed plat is a division of Tract D of that previous R.L.S. He stated that the proposed subdivision is probably the final subdivision of this area. Commissioner Simmons asked what the master plan called for on Tract A. The Secretary answered that office=industrial- buildings were proposed for Tracts A and G. -Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the hotel use was a good use for this area. - The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that he felt the hotel would be a positive development for this area. He stated that the main concerns regarding the Standards for a Special Use Permit were regarding traffic and the sewage. He stated that those concerns have been met and that the Standards for a Special Use Permit appear to be met in this case. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the three restaurants at the southeasterly portion of the R.L.S. were definitely planned or whether they were just thrown in tentatively. The Secretary answered that he did not think that they were just thrown in. -Commissioner Simmons expressed concern re- garding the number of restaurants. The Secretary answered that the restaurants would have different menus and would not compete with each other. The Secretary then reviewed the staff report for Application No. 83047 (see Planning Commission Application No. 83047 attached). The Secretary recommended a third con- dition of the approval requiring the.applicant to agree in writing to the install- ation of deferred parking stalls upon a determination by the City that such parking . was necessary. The Secretary stated that the questions of compact car stalls and the possible overlap of parking requirements for different activities in the hotel use could be discussed later after the plans have been approved. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the area for-off-site accessory parking would be for compact car stalls. She stated she thought this would be discriminatory. The Secretary explained that the off-site accessory parking spaces would be standard sized spaces. He explained that compact car stalls and other issues would be looked at in more detail at a later date. Commissioner Simmons asked how the hotel would compare with other buildings in the area, for instance, Holiday Inn. - The Secretary answered that the Holiday Inn has about 225 rooms as opposed to 175 for the Ramada Inn. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Al Beisner of Lombard Properties showed the Planning Commission some colored renderings of the interior and exterior of the building. He stated that no decision had been made on the color of brick he used for the hotel , but that it might possibly be the brick at Winslow House. Regarding- putting sod in perimeter areas, Mr. Beisner explained that he had exper- ienced trouble onother projects in extending underground irrigation. He stated that the water pressure does not seem to be high enough where the water comes out. ' Chairman Lucht pointed out that irrigation is still required in landscaped areas. Mr. Beisner stated that it was his understanding that underground irrigation is only required in areas that are sodded. There followed a discussion regarding this point. The Secretary pointed out that the other developments adjacent to the hotel site would have greenstrip areas that would expand the proposed 7' wide greenstrip to approximately 12' or more and that this would be a viable area to maintain sod. There followed a brief discussion regarding problems with water pressure. The Assistant City Engineer stated that it was probably not a• problem with pressure. Mr. Beisner acknowledged that particles collected in the water line inside the meter and slowed down the flow of water. 8-11-83 -4- Chairman Lucht asked how the operation of regrading the overall site was going. "Mr. Beisner answered that the sites shown on the master plan should be buildable and that peat was not as deep in some places as was previously thought. In response to a question from Commissioner Simmons, Mr. Beisner stated that they had been approached by seven or eight restaurants wishing to locate in this area. He stated that the hotel was the most important use and they did not want rest- aurants which would compete with the hotel 's menu. He explained that the hotel site is part of a "destination area" where people can go looking for food or entertainment and, if one place is filled up, they can go to another. Commiss- ioner Manson asked whether the nightclub in the hotel would be bigger than that in the Holiday Inn. Mr. Beisner answered in the affirmative. He stated that it would be a large nightclub and added that he felt there was a need for more live entertainment in this general area. Commissioner Manson asked when the hotel would open. Mr. Beisner stated that Ramada is shooting for the end of 1984 or early 1985. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 83045, 83046 and 83047) Chairman Lucht then opened"the meeting for a public hearing on the two special use permits and the preliminary R.L.S. concurrently. He asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the applications. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83046 (Ramada Inn/Al Beisner otion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend ap- proval of Application No. 83046, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary R.L.S. shall be revised to include items noted. in the Assistant City Engineer's memo of August 8, 1983, prior to consideration by the City Council . 4. Preliminary R. L. S. approval acknowledges a master plan for grading and utilities for the area encompassed by this R.L.S. and the areas occupied by Specs. 10 and 11 and the central parking lot. Said master grading and utility plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. However, review and approval of individual iste development plans is not thereby implied. 5. The applicant shall enter a Subdivision Agreement with the City stipulating responsibility for and assessment of costs for certain , improvements to public facilities within the public right-of-way, including-, but not limited to: a) . the median opening in Shingle- Creek Parkway b) potential installation of a traffic signal at the above median opening c) sanitary sewer improvements 8-11-83 -5- Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, .Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman -Lucht asked the Commission .whether they preferred sod or rock mulch in the perimeter greenstrip area. It was the consensus of the Commission that sod should be installed in the perimeter areas. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83045 (Ramada Inn/A1 Beisner) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by- Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend ap- proval of Application No. 83045, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. Plan approval- acknowledges deferral of 98 parking spaces to be located on the large, -central parking lot serving the commercial and industrial uses in this area. A separate Performance Agree- ment and supporting financial guarantee shall be secured by the City for improvements to the central parking lot prior to the issuance of permits for the hotel . 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official .with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 5. 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. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire exting- uishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall- be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all land- scaped areas to facilitiate site maintenance. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all si.gnery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 11 . A flood plain use permit shall be obtained for earthwork within the flood fringe. 12. The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate sod in the 7' wide greenstrip areas adjacent to interior property lines. 8-11-83 -6- Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sand strom. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83047 (Ramada Inn/A1 Beisner) - Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 83047, subject to the following conditions: 1 . At least 98 parking spaces to be constructed on Tract,C of the R.L.S. proposed under Application No. 83046 shall be legally encumbered to the sole use of the Ramada Inn on Tract B of the same R.L.S. The legal encumbrance shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney and shall be filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. A separate performance guarantee provided by Shingle Creek Land Company shall be held to insure completion of site improve- ments to the large central , common parking lot on the master plan for the area bounded by Freeway Boulevard on the south, Shingle Creek Parkway on the east and north, and MTC and Shingle Creek on the west. 3. Special use permit approval acknowledges a proof-of-parking for the hotel . The applicant shall acknowledge in writing that he will install the deferred parking upon a determination by the City that the need exists. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:52 p.m. and resumed at 10:12 p.m. APPPLICATION NO. 83044 (Salvation Army) The Secretary then introduced the next item of -business, a request for special use permit approval to conduct an office use on the I-1 zoned property at .2300 Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83044 attached). Commissioner Manson asked whether the remodeling to the building would be on the inside only.. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. Chairman Lucht called on the applicant to speak. Mr: Speck, of the Salvation Army, stated that he had nothing further to add to the Secretary's presentation. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman. Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether any- one present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING otion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 8-11-83 -7- The Secretary asked the applicant if he understood the condition requiring a written commitment by the Salvation Army to put in stalls upon a determination by the City. Per. Speck stated that he had no problems with that condition. Com- missioner Manson asked whether the proposed site was much larger than the Salvation Army's present headquarters location. Mr. Speck answered in the affirmative. He explained that the Salvation Army has had its offices at its present location for over 40 years and that it had become very crowded. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83044 (Salvation Army) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 83044, subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations, and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The special. use permit is issued to the Salvation Army as the user of the facility and is nontransferable. 3. Special use permit approval -acknowledges a proof-of-parking for stalls sufficient to meet the requirement for office use of the entire building. In the event that the City determines that the existing spaces are inadequate,. the applicant shall be requi-red to install parking stalls up to the office requirement of 75 spaces. The applicant shall state in writing that they understand and agree to this condition prior to City Council approval of the special use permit. 4. Building plans for the remodeling to office space are subject to the review and approval of the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 83029 (Wes' Standard) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for a special use permit to sell items other than fuels, lubricants or automotive parts and accessories at the service station located at 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission In- formation Sheet for Application No. 83029 attached). The Secretary stated that approval of the application would acknowledge that customers at the gas pumps would not be using parking stalls. He pointed out that parking at gas pumps has never been acknowledged before as actual parking spaces. He stated that the fact that cars would be parked at the pump islands could justify the proof-of-parking and be a means of not requiring installation of the stalls at this time. He pointed out, however, that the cars parked at the gas pumps do not fulfill the re- gairem3nts of the Zoning Ordinance. 8-11-83 -8- Commissioner Simmons asked what recourse the City would have and what expense would be incurred 'if Mr. Reavely continued' to violate the City's Ordinances. She asked whether the City would have to take Mr. Reavely to court if a determination was made that more stalls were necessary. The Secretary explained that the City is pursuing court action on the criminal violation of selling food without a license and a special use permit. He added that there is an option of filing a civil suit to bring an injunction against Mr. Reavely to prohibit him from selling food until he has obtained both the license and a special use permit. He admitted that, even with the written document in hand, as recommended, the City might have to go to court to obtain additional parking stalls.- Commissioner Simmons stated that the City could require that the parking be put in as a condition of the approval . The Secretary acknowledged that this was an option. Commissioner Simmons stated that Mr. Reavely did not seem willing to do what the City asks and that it was a con- siderable risk to hope that he would put in stalls at a later date upon a deter- mination by the City that they are needed. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the application could be approved with the conditions that have been suggested. He asked whether applicants always obey every condition. The Secretary stated that it was a legitimate question whether Mr. Reavely can live up to the requirements of the special use permit. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that it seemed- unfair to him-to require that the parking spaces be installed prior to the matter being approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Simmons clarified that she meant that the stalls would have to be put in before the special use permit would take effect. Commissioner Simmons asked why the City should invite another problem with Mr. Reavely. Com- missioner Sandstrom stated that he thought Mr. Reavely might have a change of heart after the upcoming court hearing. Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt that all the parking stalls should be put in. Chairman Lucht pointed out 'that two previous applications during the evening's meeting had been approved with stipula- tions on proof-of-parking. The discussion as to whether all required parking stalls should be put in or whether a proof-of-parking should be accepted with a stipulation in writing from Mr. Reavely that he would put in the remainder of the stalls upon a determination by the City continued at some length. Commissioner Simmons stated that the site in question is a high traffic area with a great potential for congestion. She recommended that all of the stalls be put in on the basis that the use proposed requires all of the parking and on the basis that it would be difficult to get the applicant to put the stalls in later should it'become- apparent that they are necessary. Chairman Lucht and Commissioner Sandstrom generally felt that _the additional stalls were not necessary because many of the customers would be parking at the gas pumps and would not be using the parking stalls. They noted that other uses had been approved with an acknowledgement of proof-of-parking. The Planning Assistant Pointed out that it was necessary to look at each individual use to determine whether an acknowledgement of proof-of-parking should be granted. He stated that in the present situation, the .question was whether it was reasonable to .assume that 8-11-83 -9- the additional parking was not necessary because of the cars parked at the gas pumps. Chairman Lucht asked if it was. difficult to revoke a special use permit if the codes , ordinances and regulations were violated. The Secretary stated that it is difficult. He pointed out that the City must take the initiative to revoke the special use permit. He noted the instance of the Snacks and Nik Nacks operation- which almost had its permit revoked because the proprietor had committed misdemeanors. He stated that applicants will usually continue their operation until a court orders them to cease. The Secretary explained that the legal procedure in obtaining such a court order is burdensome for the City. The Secretary also stated - that the Planning Commission should feel comfortable that the Standards for a Special Use permit will be met by the proposed use. The Secretary pointed out that the operation would not be legal until a food license is obtained and that this cannot be obtained until the special use permit is granted. Commissioner Simmons stated that the food license is not within the purview of the Planning Commission, but that parking is a concern of the Planning Commission. She argued that the multiple uses of the site would create congestion unless more parking were provided. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was concerned that the City mightjeopardize its case against Mr. Reavely if it acted favorably on the application and did not seek to stop the violation. The Secretary stated that the City could continue the application until the court decides the criminal matter before it. He stated that ' he could look into the possibility of initiating a civil action against Mr. Reavely to stop the selling of food without a license or a special use permit. Chairman Lucht then called on the representative of the applicant to speak. Mr. Bill Sathre stated that Mr. Reavely felt strongly about the first plan that he drew up for the Planning Commission. He stated that the plan done by Suburban Engineering verified Mr. Reavely's measurements. Chairman Lucht explai.ned that the Planning Commission was not questioning Mr. Reavely's honesty in providing the Commission .with the parking plan drawn by himself. The Secretary pointed out that profession- ally drawn plans are required by the City's Ordinance. He pointed out also that there was a conflict between a previous plan on file with the City and 1.9r. Reavely's hand drawn plan. He stated that the new parking plan drawn by Suburban Engineering settles the question of the correct measurements. Mr. Sathre stated that Mr. Reavely checked with the City for the proper parking space requirements before drawing the plan. He also stated that Mr. Reavely is firm on counting the parking at the gas pump islands. He stated that there was never a delay of cars at the gas pumps. Chairman Lucht stated that it was possible for additional parking to be put in. He stated that the issue is whether such parking should be put 'in. He noted that if parking were deferred, Mr. Reavely would have to agree in -writing to put it in upon a determination by the City that it is necessary. Commissioner Simmons again noted that taking that route could lead to a long drawn out process to enforce the agreement. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that it was not up to the Planning Com- mission to judge the character of Mr. Reavely, but to analyze the parking issue. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83029) Chairman Lucht then reopened the public hearing on Application No. 83029. Noting that no one was present to speak on the application, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Lucht stated that parking appeared to be the only issue with regard to the application. He stated that the Commission seemed to agree that the Standards for a Special Use permit are met with the proof-of-parking that has been drawn up by Suburban Engineering. Commissioner Manson noted that the proof-of-parking plan 8-11-83 -10- shows 900 stalls while the existing parking along the north side of the site is angle parking. She asked whether the approval would require that the proof-of- parking be striped on the lot. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that the City could accept the present pattern of parking stalls so long as it had a proof-of-parking plan which showed that all of the required parking stalls could be put in and the fact that the applicant would agree to install the parking upon a determination of the City. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. .83029 (Wes' Standard) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 83029, subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. Permit approval acknowledges proof-of-parking for five additional stalls on the site. The applicant shall agree in writing prior to City Council approval to install parking spaces in accordance with the proof-of-parking plan upon a determination by the City that additional spaces are needed to prevent traffic congestion in the public streets. 3. The screen fence along the east side of the property shall be repaired and painted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. The area long the west side of the'building (by the front entrance) shall be designated and. signed a. fire lane and no parking shall be permitted in this area. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: Commissioner Simmons. The motion passed. Commissioner Simmons stated that her reasons for opposing the application were already set forth in the previous discussion. DISCUSSION -ITEMS - Ordinance Amendment The Secretary briefly reviewed for the Planning Commission the proposed ordinance amendment to allow tennis clubs and other athletic clubs as a special use- permit in the C2 zoning district, but without a restriction on abutting residential property. The Secretary asked whether the Commission wanted to strike the term "recreation centers" from the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Lucht recommended that "recreation centers" be stricken because other uses cover what would be included under a "recreation center." Chairman Lucht asked whether Viking Gym had been classified as a gymnasium. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairman Lucht asked what use in the City would be considered *a recreation center. The Secretary answered that the City's Community Center might be considered a recreation center since it included a number of different activities within it. The Secretary went on to explain to Commissioner Sandstrom the purpose of the ordinance amendment and .the background of the application by the Normandale Tennis Club appealing the staff's determination that a racquet and swim club could not be located adjacent to residential property. _ ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT . Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment to establish a separate special use category for tennis and swim clubs and other athletic clubs which would 'not restrict abutment with residential property. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioner Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 8-11-83 -11- ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business, there was a motion by Com- missioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned 'at 11:32 p.m. airman 8-11-83 -12-