Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 05-10 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 MAY 10,1984 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The P1'anning 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 Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Mike Nelson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shalleross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioners Molly Malecki and Mary Simmons had called to say they were unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 12, 1984 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the minutes of the April 12, 1984 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Ainas, Sandstrom, and Nelson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Manson. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEM Noting that no applicants were present, Chairman Lucht suggested that the Commission review the discussion item. The Secretary briefly explained the nature of the Draft Ordinance Amendment regarding financial institutions (see draft attached) . He explained that the ordinance change is to allow finance, real estate, insurance and investment offices in the R3 Zoning District, but not banks. He also noted that banks would hereafter be subject to the retail parking formula rather than the regular office formula. The Planning Assistant also noted that banks would not be allowed in the R5 Zoning District as a result of the amendment. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of the Draft Ordinance Amendment regarding financial institutions. { Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom, and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 84011 (NANKIN EXPRESS, INC.) The Secretary then introduced the last scheduled item of business, a request for E site and building plan and special use permit approval to remodel and install a drive-up lane and window at the restaurant at 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 84011 attached) . The Secretary noted that the plan had been revised since the writing of the report to include landscape screening along the westerly greenstrip of the site adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary also explained that there is no gutter presently on the site and that any f new curb would be straight curb rather than curb and gutter. F Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Tim Johnson of Nankin Express, Inc. stated that he felt the report had been complete. 5-10-84 �1_ PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 84011) Zhairman uc t en opene th meets g�`or a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. 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. There followed a brief discussion regarding landscape treatment. Chairman Lucht stated that he thought the Junipers along the westerly greenstrip were appropriate since they would provide screening during the entire year. He suggested that Nankin put in a Norway Maple at the northwest corner of the site. Mr. Johnson agreed with this recommendation. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84011 (Nankin Express, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No 84011 subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof may be grounds for revocations. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes 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. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. Curbing shall be provided around all parking and driving areas in accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer. 7. Colored fluorescent and spotlights along the mansard of the building shall be removed prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 84009 AND 84010 (Lombard Properties) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan approval for a 75,250 sq. ft. low-rise office/industrial building at 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway and a request for special use permit for 20 off-site accessory parking stalls on the central parking lot to the west. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 84010 attached) . The Secretary added that the staff had requested revisions in the landscape plan which have not yet been submitted. He noted that these would include shade trees along the easterly greenstrip and a 5-10-84 -2- hedgerow in that location. He also stated that the staff had recommended sod in the landscape areas around the building with the exception of smaller compact rock mulch areas where plantings could be located. The Secretary pointed out that the only other 12' high ceiling building in the Industrial Park is Shingle Creek Plaza II. The Secretary stated that the proposed building is somewhat experimental and of a higher quality than any other building in the Industrial Park. He noted that the applicant does not expect to reach a 50% office occupancy, but that the staff is concerned that tenants will have a high demand for office space. Commissioner Manson asked whether the Spec. 14 Building was being proposed first because it is on Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary agreed with that assessment. Commissioner Nelson asked what the short fall and overall parking would be if Spec. 10 and Spec. 12 were also low-rise industrial buildings. The Secretary stated that the difference in office occupancy between the two types of buildings is about 30%. In response to a question from Chairman Lucht regarding the master.plan for the area, the Secretary briefly discussed the allocation of parking spaces from the central parking lot to the various industrial buildings planned for the area. He stated that the central parking lot was well located if a ramp were to be built over it to serve these buildings as well. He stated there could be some question as to whether the land in that area could physically support a ramp. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Al Beisner of Lombard Properties pointed to the Palmer Lake Plaza building and Shingle Creek Plaza II development as areas where office tenants have not created a problem. He stated that a high bay building does not necessarily translate into higher use of the space. He stated that most tenants who are presently in high bay buildings could move into low- rise buildings and that the lower ceiling is more energy efficient. He stated that his company would be willing to build a ramp if it were demanded by a solid tenant which expressed a need for additional parking. Mr. Beisner explained that none of the other Spec. buildings had reached a 50%office occupancy in the past. He stated he felt that he was being penalized for something that had never taken place. Mr. Beisner went on to say that staff had not proven satisfactorily to him that Spec. 14 would need as many stalls as required by 50% office occupancy. He added that it would be nice for Lombard Properties if such an occupancy rate did occur, but that he didn't think it would. He stated that the City of Bloomington takes a completely different approach in limiting the amount of parking that can be provided on the site while maximizing the building. Mr. Beisner concluded his comments by raising the question of compact car parking. He stated that some accommodation for compact cars could allow more spaces to be provided. Chairman Lucht offered the idea of rescinding the approval on the Spec. 10 building and entering into an agreement to put in a ramp if that became necessary. Chairman Lucht pointed out that the occupancy of these buildings changes over time and could evolve into more office space. Mr. Beisner acknowledged that some companies can grow dramatically and employ more people than was ever envisioned when a lease was entered into. Chairman Lucht pointed out that more parking space available to a site gives greater flexibility in leasing the building. Mr. Beisner agreed, but added that empty parking spaces are an economic drain on a project. Mr. Beisner stated that Brooklyn Center has not had high office occupancy rates in its industrial buildings. In response to a question from Commissioner Sandstrom regarding a parking ramp, Mr. Beisner stated a parking ramp would not be a feasible choice for one building. Commissioner Sandstrom suggested that a central parking 5-10-84 -3- ramp could serve a number of buildings in the overall master plan. Chairman Lucht stated that the present review by the Planning Commission was an opportunity to prevent problems in the future that might arise if all of the buildings become heavily office. The Secretary pointed out regarding the Palmer Lake Plaza that it was given approval for office occupancy for up to 40% of the gross floor area and that some of the tenants can be purely office uses. The Secretary also clarified that a parking ramp would not have to be built at the time Spec. 14 was constructed and occupied, but at the time the City determines it is needed. Mr. Beisner asked if the plans could be sent on to the City Council on the stipulation that a ramp would be required if the City determined that it were necessary and that it could be referred back to the Planning Commission if other partners in Lombard Properties stated that they are not willing to build such a ramp. The Secretary stated that there was a need for further review of the matter. He stated that the staff feel that a 50-50 ratio between office and industrial use of the building is a minimum to plan for. He pointed to the fact that in other communities, including Brooklyn Park, similar buildings have had very high rates of office occupancy. Mr. Beisner raised the question of compact parking stalls. The Secretary stated that he would prefer that the City wait until the standard car is smaller. He stated that the standard car is presently about as large as the City's required parking stall. Mr. Beisner stated that he paid close attention to the parking needs of his tenants and that he would not wish to be caught short on parking. But, he added, he builds for the rule and not the exception in tenant requirements. Chairman Lucht agreed that Mr. Beisner should build for the rule, but stated that the Commission asks that he provides for the exception. He explained that the City does not wish Mr. Beisner to put in more parking than is necessary, but that the option of a ramp should be exercised if parking demand exceeds expectations. Mr. Beisner stated that he had flexibility in developing the area because of the vacant land presently available. The Secretary noted that the vacant land would someday be used up and that parking problems could require a ramp. Chairman Lucht suggested that a ramp be planned to provide proof-of-parking for the developments in this area. Mr. Beisner stated that he hoped the Planning Commission is correct in its projection of office occupancy. Commissioner Ainas cited a similar type of development in Crystal and noted the use of underground parking and a parking ramp. He stated that in the majority of cases underground parking was cheaper. Noting the high water table in this area, the City Engineer stated that providing underground parking in this area could be tough. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 84009 (Lombard Properties) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to table Application No. 84009 until a parking plan reflecting 50% office occupancy were submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 84010 Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing; noted that no one was present to speak; and asked for a motion to continue the public hearing. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 84010) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to continue the public hearing on Application No. 84010. The motion passed unanimously. 5-10-84 -4- The Secretary noted that a special use permit pertaining to the use of the building would allow purely office uses to locate in the Spec. 14 building. He recommended that the applicant come back with an application for a special use permit for this type of occupancy. ACTIO14 TABLING APPLICATION NO. 84010 (Lombard Properties) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to table Application No. 84010. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief review of upcoming business items, there was a motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning C ion adjourned at 9:39 p.m. ai 5-10-84 -5- 1 1