Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 04-11 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION APRIL 11 , 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom, Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht explained that Commissioner Manson had called to say that she would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 28, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the minutes of the March 28,1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Malecki and Ainas. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85006 (New Horizons Enterprises, Inc.) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to conduct a group day care center in the Park Nicollet Medical Center building at 6000 Earle Brown Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85006 attached) . The Secretary also explained the effect of the day care center on parking requirements for the building. He explained that the site was built for retail occupancy and that, because the medical and day care occupancy require less parking, there is a slight surplus. He stated that the installation of the playground would use up some additional stall's, but would not leave the building with deficient parking. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. Miss Sue Dunkley of New Horizons Enterprises, Inc. stated that she had nothing to add. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85006) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. 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. Commissioner Sandstrom asked about the extra gate. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether she had any problems with providing an extra gate on the south side of the playground for safety purposes. Miss Dunkley said she had no problem with that. She said that most of the day care centers they have have two gates for the playground. 4-11-85 -1- ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85006 (New Horizon Enterprises, Inc. Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 85006, 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 all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 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. 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. 5. Six "Parent Parking Only" signs shall be installed at parking spaces near the day care center entrance to facilitate traffic to and from the center. 6. The playground plan shall be revised prior to consideration by the City Council to provide a gate along the south edge of the playground to allow for the best possible escape from the building and playground in the event of fire. 7. Special Use Permit approval is exclusive of signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Noting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. T. J. Applebee's The Secretary then reviewed briefly with the Planning Commission plans for a T. J. ApplebeeIs Restaurant in the Brookd ale Shopping Center. He noted that there would be two slight additions to the building and that there would be an outside area for eating during the summertime which would have to be screened. He stated that there was no impact on the parking requirements for the Brookdale Center because of the ordinance provision allowing up to 10% of a shopping center floor space to be devoted to restaurant without requiring more than the retail parking formula. b. Traffic Analysis The Secretary then introduced a discussion of a traffic analysis being performed by Short-Elliott-Hendrickson for the City. He explained that the traffic analysis is a study which was commissioned by the City Council as part of establishing a 4-11-85 -2- moratorium on retail development in the City. He showed the area of the City included in the traffic study. He explained that this area includes almost all vacant land in the City which is eligible for retail development. The Secretary explained that the study was to look at two possible development scenarios: a worst case scenario and a probable case scenario. He explained that the City solicited proposals from Bennett-Ringrose-Wolsfeld and from Short- Elliott-Hendrickson and that Short-Elliott was selected to do the study. He added that, in developing the probable scenario for future development in the study area, City staff met with key area developers to discuss with them what development was likely to occur. The Secretary then turned the presentation over to representatives from Short- Elliott-Hendrickson. Mr. Bob Byers of SEH explained that staff gathered land use data on a parcel-by-parcel basis which was used to establish the development scenarios. He stated that SEH then established certain traffic zones to analyze traffic. Mr. Byers showed an overhead transparency of the traffic zones for the Commission, pointing out some major roadways. He also reviewed with the Commission the roadway network which established the various intersections within the traffic study and the destination points and linkages within the study area. He stated that SEH had generated traffic counts for various intersections in the traffic analysis based on the traffic patterns arrived at by staff and SEH. He stated that traffic counts were compared with existing traffic counts and some assumptions were adjusted to bring the traffic counts into close alignment. Based on these revised assumptions, traffic for the probable development scenario was projected. Finally, he said, from these traffic projections for the probable scenario, impacts on the levels of service for various intersections were estimated. The needed improvements to the roadway network could be considered from these impacts on the level of service. Mr. Glen Van Wormer of SEH then showed the Commission a transparency of a typical intersection with traffic counts for the various movements through the intersection. Chairman Lucht asked whether this represented the quantity of cars going through the intersection per hour. Mr. Van Wormer responded that it was a peak hour traffic projection, not an average hour. Mr. Van Wormer then reviewed with the Commission the various levels of service, A through F, which represent declining levels of service. Each level of service, he explained, represents more difficulty in moving through an intersection because of increased traffic levels. He then showed the Commission the traffic counts for Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive based on the projected development scenario. He stated that the 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. peak hour level of service would be F (unacceptable) . He stated that the traffic problems resulting at this intersection from full development would result in some diversion of traffic to other routes and the need for some improvements to increase the capacity of the intersection. He stated that he and Mr. Byers were presently studying the capacity of the various intersections in the study area under the probable development scenario. He concluded by saying that the traffic study will enable the City to analyze the impact of the respective - developments on the level of service at various intersections in the traffic system. In answer to questions from Chairman Lucht, the Secretary and the Planner explained that the probable development scenario included Target and office buildings planned or under construction and that it was a fully developed scenario with no vacant land remaining. The Secretary stated that one of the jobs of the Commission in the future would be to decide how to address the impact of future development on the roadway network. He stated that some ordinance amendments relating to traffic impacts might be in order. 4-11-85 -3- Commissioner Nelson asked whether anything was unmanageable with the two different scenarios. Mr. Van Wormer answered that the intersection at Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway and the intersection at County Road 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway would be a problem under the probable scenario. He stated that under the worst case scenario a number of intersections become difficult. Commissioner Sandstrom pointed out problems on Brooklyn Boulevard now. Mr. Van Wormer acknowledged this and stated that the purpose of the study was to try to anticipate the problems of future developments before they occur in order to make accommodation ahead of time. The Secretary stated that the traffic study would not tell the City what to do in terms of land use, but would be a source of information in helping to make those decisions. Director of Public Works Sy Knapp then reviewed various aspects of the study with the Commission. He stated that the land use forecasts had been developed in consultation with major area developers. He stated that actual development would not necessarily follow the scenarios, but that they are a good first guess, that they represent a consensus between staff and developers as to what is likely to occur. He stated that knowing the possible need for future improvements to intersections will help the City work with landowners to reserve the necessary right-of-way for street widenings or lane modifications. Regarding the level of service projections, he stated that the City, with the information from the consultant, already knows that some intersections will need to be improved even under the probable scenario. He explained that the benefits of various types of development must be weighed against the costs, in terms of traffic improvements, and other things that that type of develoment will incur. He acknowledged that traffic analysis is only one part of making land use decisions, but he concluded by saying that it is an important part and should be used to help plan future development. Commissioner Nelson asked whether the probable and worst case scenarios were similar in terms of overall development intensity. The Secretary answered that the two scenarios in the case of some parcels were exactly the same, but that in the case of other parcels there was a big difference. He pointed out that the traffic analysis would look at both the 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. peak hour traffic volumes and the 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. peak hour traffic volumes. He noted that there are different types of traffic at the given intersections going in different directions at various times. He explained that both peak hours could be problems, but for different reasons. Chairman Lucht concluded that the probable scenario can probably be managed, but that the worst case scenario would be difficult to manage. Mr. Van Wormer agreed generally, stating that there are limits to what can be done to accommodate traffic. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that new development contributes to the community's tax base and in other important ways. He stated that it was the duty of the City to accommodate the traffic resulting from full development of the City. Mr. Van Wormer explained that there are limits to the amount of traffic that can be managed in a given area and that development must be accountable to those limits. He stated that traffic was only one consideration in making land use decisions, but that it was an important one. The Secretary used an analogy of having so many "chips" which are used up, to varying degrees, with each development. He stated that it was important to realize how many chips one had and not to use them all up with the first development that comes along. ADJOURNMENT 4-11-85 -4- Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Chairman 4-11-85 -5- 1 1