Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 12-17 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 DECEMBER 17, 1985 REGULAR SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom, Mike Nelson, Wallace Bernards and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 21, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to approve the minutes of the November 21, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted.. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 85038 AND 85039 (Robert Schell)_. Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to expand the dental clinic at 412 66th Avenue North. The Secretary also introduced a variance application to allow expansion of a nonconforming building within required setback area. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 85038 and 85039)• The Secretary also noted one possible location of a future Highway 252 right-of-way line along the east side of the property in question. The Secretary stated that there are other parcels along Highway 252 in a similar circumstance. He stated that in this case the nonconformity of the existing building and.the addition was too great to allow an expansion. He added that a relocation of the building could possibly be accomplished on the property. He concluded by saying the property had suffered damages as a result of the highway taking of the neighboring property which made the applicant's building nonconforming as to setback and that there was a need for further negotiation between Dr. Schell and MN/DOT to reduce the right-of-way taking to the minimum necessary and thereby reduce the nonconformity as much as possible. Commissioner Nelson asked what the setback would be if this possible right-of-way line were, in fact, established by MN/DOT. The Secretary stated that it is conceivable that the right-of-way line could be 50' away from the proposed addition and that the addition could, therefore, be allowed. He pointed out that conforming additions to nonconforming buildings had been allowed in the past, as in the case of Lynbrook Bowl. Commissioner Nelson asked when the applicant would know what the Highway Department's right-of-way line would ultimately be. The Secretary stated that that would require further negotiation. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Dr. Robert Schell, owner of the clinic, stated that he somewhat he agreed with the staff report. 12-17-85 -1- He stated that he basically wanted to know where he stood relative to the City so that he can take that position back to the State. He stated that he did want to add on to his building because of additional business that he had contracted with the Share Medical Plan. He showed the Commission a layout of the intersection of the proposed Highway 252 and 66th Avenue North and stated that it was the most recent plan developed by the Highway Department. He pointed out that the Superamerica station across 66th will be closer to Highway 252 than the clinic. He also pointed out that the State would be taking 20' from the front of his property along 66th Avenue North. Dr. Schell explained that the State would not be using the west side of the service station property to the east and that a row of trees would continue to exist in this location. He also added that the rooms in the proposed addition would not be for treatment. Chairman Lucht asked Dr. Schell whether he had talked to the State regarding acquisition of the underlying rights to the neighboring property. Dr.Schell responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the State could give Dr. Schell an option to buy the remnant parcel of land. Dr. Schell agreed. However, he stated that his present problem is that the State owns the land and it is, therefore, considered right-of-way. He also pointed out that he did not need the property and that he had no use for it. Chairman Lucht pointed out that the property by itself would not be buildable. Dr. Schell stated that he did not want to relocate his building because of an artificial right-of-way line. He stated that it would be an expense for the general public to relocate the clinic. He stated that he did not expect action on the application at this meeting, but wanted to let the Commission know his situation. Chairman Lucht stated that the Planning Commission had to be careful about granting variances since it would set a precedent for other cases. There followed a general discussion of the situation. The Secretary again stated that the highway taking creates damages for the applicant. He stated that 30 years ago the Highway Department would not be required to compensate for such damages as creating a nonconforming status for a particular building. He pointed out, however, that MN/DOT's rules have changed and that it must now pay for such damages when they are clearly documented. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85039) 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 Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. There followed a discussion as to the proper procedure to follow. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission could table both applications and express the opinion that the application, in its present form, would be recommended for denial. This, then, could be conveyed to the State, he said, and they would have to respond. Chairman Lucht wondered whether tabling would be a strong enough message. Commissioner Wallerstedt noted that this situation had been compared to the case of the Evergreen Park Apartments. She asked whether this was the same situation and whether tabling was employed at that time. The Secretary stated that in that situation the applicant had insisted on an action by the Planning Commission. He stated, however, that MN/DOT will not revise their position until it is shown that damages are clearly documented. 12-17-85 -2- ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 85039 (Robert Schell) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to table Application No. 85039 with direction to the applicant that the application in its present form would be recommended for denial and that further negotiation should be pursued with MN/DOT. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Ainas, Nelson and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 85038 (Robert Schell) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to table Application No. 85038 on the grounds that Application No. 85039 is not yet resolved. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85040 (Brian Zubert) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 152 room all suite hotel on the vacant parcel of land immediately east of Earle Brown Bowl, south of Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85040 attached). The Secretary added that staff had put templets on the site plan and concluded that semi trailers would have a very difficult time gaining access to this site and, therefore, no trailer parking was required. The City Engineer commented as to available sewer capacity. He noted that his memo, dated December 16, 1985 contains two estimates of the projected flow of the hotel. He stated that these estimates vary, depending on the method of calculation. He stated that he felt the truth lay somewhere in between these two estimates and that it should live within the maximum established by the City of 185 gallons per minute coming off the office park and hotel development. The City Engineer also pointed out that the sewer connection would have to be to the sanitary sewer lines within the private road rather than Freeway Boulevard and that this would allow the City to control the flow to the City main. The Secretary added that liquor cannot be given away under the City's liquor ordinance and that the establishment does not qualify for a liquor license either. He noted that the applicant had expressed plans to give away drinks to hotel patrons. The Secretary concluded by stating that the City had received a letter expressing support for the proposed hotel from Roberts Properties which owns some industrial buildings in the industrial park nearby. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Bob Fields, representing the applicant, stated that he would answer any questions of the Commission. Chairman Lucht asked whether there were any other Comfort Inns in the general area. Mr. Fields stated that Comfort Inns was a subsidiary of Quality Inns and that there are others along the I-94 freeway in North Dakota. Mr. Charlie Radloff, the architect for the project, stated that he had no objection to the conditions of approval listed in the report. In response to a question from the Secretary, Mr. Fields stated that liquor would not be a part of the operation in Brooklyn Center. He stated that Comfort Inn wants to beef up other amenities offered in the hotel and perhaps pursue the possibility of limited liquor service in the future. 12-17-85 -3- Commissioner M.alecki asked what food would be served at the hotel. Mr. Fields stated that the continental breakfast would be available for patrons only. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked whether the applicant had done a market analysis to determine whether a hotel of this type would be successful in an area that has other hotels in it already. Mr. Fields answered that a market analysis has been done and that the conclusion was that a Comfort Inn would meet a strata of the market not presently provided for in this location. He stated that this was the upper budget "lower upper class" segment of the market. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85040) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one present to speak regarding the application. He called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ma.lecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked how the staff had arrived at the conclusion that no traffic problem would result from the development of the hotel. The Secretary explained that this conclusion was based on the Short-Elliot-Hendrickson traffic study done earlier in 1985• He acknowledged that there would be more traffic generated by the development, but that it would not cause a serious deterioration in the level of service at nearby intersections. He stated that most of the traffic problems would be handled on-site and on the private access road. Commissioner Sandstrom added that he did not think there would be concentrated peaks with the hotel traffic as there is with office traffic which tends to come and go at narrow times of the day. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85040 (Brian Zubert) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 85040, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to aplicable 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 device in accordance with Chaper 5 of the City Ordinances. 12-17-85 -4- 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 parking and driving areas. 9• The private access road for this site and the office park to the south shall be constructed in accordance with plans approved under Application No. 85029 and signed for no parking/fire lane prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the hotel. 10. Building plans and operation of the hotel are subject to approval by the City Sanitarian with respect to the whirlpools, hot tub, sauna, lodging license and food service. 11. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 12. The plans shall be modified prior to issuance of permits to indicate: a. Relocation of handicapped parking stalls (4 in number) to the parking area west of the building as close as possible to the west entrance to the building. b. Modification of the grading and drainage plan to indicate collection of drainage in areas other than access drives to the site. 13. The Fire Marshall shall approve the number and placement of fire hydrants serving the site prior to the issuance of permits. 14. The plat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:08 p.m. and resumed at 9:26 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 85041 (City of Brooklyn Center HRA) Following the recess, the Secretary introduced the last item of business, a request for preliminary R.L.S. approval to resubdivide for conveyance purposes the Earle Brown Farm site and Ryan Construction Company's vacant parcel at the Northeast corner of Earle Brown Drive and Summit Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85041 attached). The Secretary also noted that Tract E, rather than Tract C as noted in the report, would be landlocked. 12-17-85 _5_ PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that no one was present to speak regarding the application. He called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85041 (City of Brooklyn Center HRA) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 85041, 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. 3. Approval of the proposed R.L.S. is for reconveyance purposes only. No permits for new construction may be issued without a replatting of landlocked parcels with other parcels or an amendment of the development contract between the City and Ryan Construction Company. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEM (Sign Ordinance Amendments) The Secretary briefly referred to a memo that he had written on two suggested amendments to the Sign Ordinance regarding rummage sale signs and wall signs on enclosed shopping centers. He asked whether there were any questions. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether real estate signs would be changed at all. The Secretary stated that real estate signs would not be affected by the proposed amendment, but that other modifications to the Sign Ordinance should be considered in the coming year. The Secretary went on to explain restrictions that will still apply to rummage sale signs although there would be a liberalization for such signs under the proposed amendment that was requested by the City Council. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of two sign ordinance amendments relating to rummage sale signs and wall signs for enclosed shopping malls. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary then reviewed with the Planning Commission the 1986 meeting schedule as proposed and also noted that certain Commissioners would be up for reappointment. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked who enforced the Sign Ordinance. The Secretary stated that enforcement of the Sign Ordinance was somewhat divided between the Police Department and the Planning and Inspection Department. He stated that signs 12-17-85 -6- which require a permit are approved by the Planning and Inspection Department and that signs that do not require a permit are generally under the enforcement of the Police Department. There was a brief discussion of Sign Ordinance provisions and enforcement realities. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Sandstrom will be gone during the month of January on a trip to Hawaii. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Chairman 12-17-85 -7- 1 1 1