Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 11-13 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 NOVEMBER 13, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Carl Sandstrom, Lowell Ainas, Wallace Bernards, and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier, and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Nelson had called to say he would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 30, 1986 Commissioner Bernards asked whether a 5th condition had indeed been added to the approval of Application No. 86039• The Secretary and Chairman Lucht responded in the affirmative. Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the October 30, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sandstrom. Following the Chairman's explanation, Chairman Lucht asked whether Mr. Ron Kladt, the applicant for Application No. 86041, was present. As there was no response, he asked the Secretary to introduce the next item of business. APPLICATION NO. 85004 (Cathy Rausch) The Secretary then introduced the second item on the Planning Commission's agenda, a request for an amendment to the special use permit approval for a home beauty shop at 3000 63rd Avenue North to allow a nonresident employee for two and one half years in order for Mrs. Rausch to obtain a shop manager's license. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85004 attached). The Secretary explained that the nonresident employee referred to in the application is the shop manager who must be present until Mrs. Rausch receives her shop manager's license. Commissioner Bernards asked whether another extension could be granted if the time acknowledged in this approval were not adequate. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, stating that there is no limit in the ordinance on the length of time for a nonresident employee, rather the conditions of the Special Use Permit limit this matter. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. Mrs. Rausch answered in the negative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85004) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. Mrs. Wykrent, 3006 63rd Avenue North, stated that she was opposed to on-street parking. She stated that that was her only concern and that 11-13-86 _1_ she had no other objection to the home occupation. The Secretary asked Mrs. Wykrent if she had experienced any problems with on-street parking in association with the home business. Mrs. Wykrent responded in the negative. She stated that she simply wanted to reiterate that concern. The Secretary acknowledged this concern and explained that there were no other changes to the home occupation recommended except the extension of the time for the nonresident employee. He stated that on-street parking would still be prohibited. Mrs. Ann Britton of 3001 63rd Avenue North also expressed the same concern that she was opposed to on-street parking. Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone present wished to speak. Hearing no one, 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. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION NO. 85004 (Cathy Rausch) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of the amendment to condition #11 of Application No. 85004, in the following form: 11. Special use permit approval acknowledges the presence of one non- resident employee until July 11, 1989 for the purpose of the applicant working toward attaining a shop manager's license from the State Board of Cosmetology. At that time, the application shall be brought back to the City Council for review of the number of hours authorized in condition #4. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86041 (Ron Kladt) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to- operate a suntan studio and conduct aerobic exercise classes in the office building at 6040 Earle Brown Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86041 attached). Commissioner Bernards asked whether the Building Code would address noise concerns. He stated that the music used for the aerobics classes can often be audible in another room. The Planner brought the floor plan for the tenant space to Commissioner Bernards and showed him the location of the aerobics exercise room. He noted that it was adjacent to another tenant along one wall. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Ron Kladt stated that the existing tenant space did not require any additional building improvements in order to conduct the classes. He acknowledged that sound transmission would be a concern and that the classes would be held for six months on a trial basis. He stated that if the landlord passed along any complaints regarding noise that the classes could either be shifted to evening hours or dropped altogether. 11-13-86 -2- Commissioner Malecki asked whether there would be facilities for showers, etc. Mr. Kladt answered that there would be no other facilities in the tenant space other than the suntan booths. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86041) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, 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. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86041 (Ron Kladt) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 86041, subject to the following conditions: 1. The operation shall be inspected on an annual basis by the City Sanitarian. Any compliance ordinance orders issued by the Sanitarian shall be promptly complied with. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. (This condition is not intended to apply to the sale of the existing operation, but to the introduction of an entirely new operation in the same space or to the expansion of some other use requiring special use permit approval). 4. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86040 (Hoyt Development) Chairman Lucht then moved to the next item of business, a request for site plan and special use permit approval to modify the existing parking lot at Palmer Lake Plaza (6850, 60, 70 Shingle Creek Parkway) and install an access drive from the site onto 69th Avenue North. The Secretary stated that the applicant had contacted the staff earlier about the possibility of tabling the application. He stated that the application was kept because the agenda's had been prepared and notices had been sent for a public hearing. He noted that there was no one present for the public hearing other than the applicant. He stated, therefore, that the Planning Commission could lay the matter over if it wished. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Brad Hoyt stated that he had expected to address concerns that might be raised at the public hearing. Noting that no one was present concerning the application, he stated that there must not be many problems with it and stated that he would like to offer his reasons to the Planning Commission for the proposed access. Chairman Lucht asked the Secretary to present the staff report first. 11-13-86 -3- The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86040 attached). The Secretary explained that a draft resolution for denial for Part B of the application had not been prepared because the staff expected the applicant to request the matter to be tabled. Chairman Lucht asked whether any residents got notices of the public hearing. The Secretary stated that notices would have gone to the residents at the townhouse development south of Shingle Creek Parkway. Chairman Lucht commented that notices would not have been sent, therefore, to residents north of 69th Avenue North. The Secretary agreed. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked for an explanation as to where the access would be relative to the bridge over Shingle Creek. The Secretary indicated on an overhead transparency the location of the proposed access approximately 450 ft. west of the Shingle Creek bridge. Commissioner Malecki asked whether there was a bike trail in that area. The City Engineer responded in the affirmative. The Secretary briefly explained the realignment of Shingle Creek Parkway which would become a through street with 69th Avenue west of the present intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th Avenue. He also explained that 69th Avenue North east of that intersection would "T" into the through street. Commissioner Wallerstedt stated that she agreed that there would be cut-through traffic going through the Palmer Lake Plaza parking lot from Shingle Creek Parkway to 69th if the new access were put in. The Secretary showed the access locations on the site plan. He also noted the access for trucks across from Xerxes Avenue. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Brad Hoyt of Hoyt Development explained to the Commission that the reason for the requested access onto 69th Avenue North was not because of the traffic congestion on Shingle Creek Parkway. He explained that the development at Palmer Lake Plaza is really three buildings, not one. He stated that the easterly building is an 18' high bulk warehouse with dock doors. The westerly wing, he explained, is an office/service wing with wholesale distributors and drive-in doors. The north wing, he stated, is an office building. He stated that the tenants who are in the office building, or wish to lease space in the office building, want to screen the service doors on the west side of the building. He also explained that office tenants do not want to drive by the truck entrance or the service area. He explained that the proposed berming in the westerly parking lot is to screen those service doors from the rest of the parking lot. Mr. Hoyt again stated that the request was not based on traffic concerns. He stated that the realignment of Shingle Creek Parkway in the future should actually reduce the number of trips onto 69th Avenue North since Shingle Creek Parkway will be a much easier route to take. Mr. Hoyt also stated that there would not likely be any truck traffic coming in the access of 69th since the loading dock area is served directly off Shingle Creek Parkway. Mr. Hoyt also stated that there must have been truck traffic from the City garage in the past that used 69th Avenue North. Mr. Hoyt pointed out that the lack of office occupancy in the building has resulted in a devaluation of the property and a reduction of taxes. He explained that the orientation of the building is difficult and that people coming to the building have to drive by the loading dock area before getting to the office building. He stated that the exposure of the site to any residential neighborhood is somewhat distant. 11-13-86 -4- Mr. Hoyt also asked when the road improvement would take place. He stated that he has waited a long time for similar types of improvements at other locations that he manages. Mr. Hoyt stated that he felt that the access was inadequate at present and that tenants need more access to 69th Avenue North which is the side of the building that appeals to office tenants. Mr. Hoyt also explained the existing planter in the parking lot and stated that it was constructed to cover a low spot in the lot that had sunk 14" since its original construction. He stated that the drainage problem has not been alleviated by the island and that the low area would be filled in. Regarding the possibility of cut- through traffic, Mr. Hoyt stated that that was more a concern of the owner than the City. He stated that speed bumps might be installed to discourage cars from cutting through the lot. Chairman Lucht pointed out that the property had been zoned industrial, along with other land in the industrial park. He stated that the special use permit to allow an office use on the site was not an excuse to extend the access to 69th Avenue North. He stated that the office use would have to live within the same constraints as other uses in the industrial park. Mr. Hoyt stated that he has built a lot of office projects in industrial districts. He stated that this project is somewhat obsolete because of the mixture of uses and the orientation of the building. The Secretary pointed out that Palmer Lake Plaza is only about seven years old. He stated that the office use on the site was allowed by special use permit. He stated that one of the concerns of the City is regarding the compatibility of industrial uses with adjacent land uses. The Secretary also pointed out that the Assessor devalued the property because of physical deterioration and lack of maintenance, not the lack of an access. Mr. Hoyt agreed with this statement, but added that access is important to marketing the building to potential tenants. He stated that it is an issue at present with two or three tenants. He also stated that truck traffic would not use the access off 69th. Chairman Lucht stated that the concern was not simply over truck traffic, but the total traffic generation that would be experienced on 69th Avenue North. Commissioner Sandstrom suggested the possibility of widening the access onto Shingle Creek Parkway to allow greater freedom of movement of that access. Mr. Hoyt stated that traffic movements are not really a problem at the site. He explained that the problem was really the image of the development from Shingle Creek Parkway. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he did not think that the driveway onto 69th would change the appearance of the building. Mr. Hoyt explained that the image of the building from Shingle Creek Parkway is poor in that office tenants need to see the building from a different prospective which an access off 69th Avenue North would provide. The Planner pointed out that providing an access onto 69th to appeal to office traffic presupposes that there is commercial traffic on 69th. He stated that that is not the case for the most part at present and that the City wants to avoid inviting commercial traffic onto 69th. The Planner suggested that Mr. Hoyt work to dress up the exposure to Shingle Creek Parkway to hide the loading area better. Commissioner Ainas asked whether there was a grade differential problem between 69th Avenue North and the existing parking lot which would make the grade of the proposed driveway too steep. The City Engineer responded that the difference in grade is not significant. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86040) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Noting that no one was present to speak other than the applicant, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. 11-13-86 -5- CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PART A (Application No. 86040) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Part A of Application No. 86040. While the motion was on the floor, Commissioner Malecki wondered if the applicant would still want to do the improvements outlined in Part A of the application if he could not have the access. She suggested possibly tabling the application to look at alternative improvements. She also asked whether the City Engineer has evaluated the drainage problem. The City Engineer explained that no grading plans had been submitted. He stated that he would work with the applicant to modify the parking lot and the accesses to the site, if desired. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked the applicant whether he still had an interest in Part A, if Part B were denied. Mr. Hoyt stated that he had questions regarding the conditions. He stated that he did not see the need for a performance bond and also requested that he be allowed to use asphalt curb around the landscaped island rather than concrete curb and gutter. Chairman Lucht explained that the City has a longstanding policy of requiring B612 curb and gutter around all parking and driving areas, including parking lot islands. The Planner also explained that the proposed landscaped island affected the amount of parking available for tenants in the building land that there were other deferred improvements which need to be completed. Commissioner Sandstrom suggested that the Commission at least act on Part A. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked again whether Mr. Hoyt wanted to proceed with Part A if Part B (the access onto 69th) were not allowed. Mr. Hoyt stated that he would like to confer with his partners as to what to do. The Secretary recommended tabling the application. He stated that the staff could discuss the conditions with the applicant. WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION REGARDING PART A Application No. 86040 (Hoyt Development) Commissioner--Sandstrom then withdrew his motion to recommend approval of Part A of Application No. 86040 and Commissioner Ainas also withdrew the second. Chairman Lucht then polled the Commission as to their feelings about Part B of the application regarding the proposed access. All of the Commissioners stated that they were opposed to allowing the access. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 86040 AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL otion by Commissioner Wallerstedt seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to table Application No. 86040 and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial concerning Part B of the application. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Chair 11-13-86 -6-