Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 12-11 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 DECEMBER 11, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Carl Sandstrom, Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioners Lowell Ainas and Ann Wallerstedt had called to say they would be unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 13, 1986 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the November 13, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Nelson. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86042 AND 86043 (Lombard Properties, Inc.) o . owing e—CFiairman's exp-fa-n-a-tion" eSecre ary rev iewe he first two items of business, a request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow a permanent project identification sign for the Shingle Creek Business Center (Application No. 86042) and a request for a variance to allow two off-site directional signs at the intersections of Shingle Creek Parkway and Parkway Circle (Application No. 86043)- The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application No. 86042 and 86043 attached) . Regarding the project identification sign, the Secretary noted that the signs at the Brookdale complex would not require a variance under the present ordinance because that complex is a unified, attached complex. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Steve Mosborg with Lombard Properties stated that he had nothing to add to the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 86042 and 86043) . 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 Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sandstrom asked what other signs might be permitted as a result of the precedent created by approving the project identification sign. The Secretary stated that there was already some precedent for such a sign. He stated that other similar situations would have to have common ownership and access over a multiple parcel development. The Secretary also stated that the signery proposed fits 12-11-86 -1- within the sign package and that there is a consistent theme throughout the development. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there would be more signery than normal. The Secretary stated that the proposed sign would substitute for any freestanding sign for the office building. He stated that that building would only be allowed a wall sign up to 10% of the wall area. Commissioner Bernards asked about the illumination of the signs. Ms. Cheryl O'Donnell of Sign Consultants explained that the signs would be internally lighted on both the directional and project identification signs. She stated that the signery would be low key in nature and would be aesthetically attractive. Commissioner Bernards asked how the lighting would be controlled. Ms. O'Donnell stated that it would be on a timer that would automatically turn it off at a certain time. Mr. Mosborg of Lombard Properties stated that the sign would probably be lit from dusk until about 1:00 a.m. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86042 (Lombard Properties, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 86042, subject to the following conditions: 1. No other freestanding sign within the Shingle Creek Business Center complex shall have an impact plan larger than the 127.5 sq. ft. of the largest panel of the proposed project identification signs. 2. A deed restriction limiting freestanding signs within the Shingle Creek Business Center to 127.5 sq. ft. shall be executed and filed with the title to the affected properties. 3. The permit for the proposed freestanding project identification sign shall not be issued until the building permit is issued for the planned office development on the same parcel. Any resubdivision of the land parcel at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard or development proposal for something other than a multi-storey office development shall invalidate approval of this application. 4. The freestanding project identification sign authorized by this variance shall be in lieu of any and all other freestanding identification signs permitted by the Sign Ordinance for the property on which it shall be located. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: None. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86043 (Lombard Properties, Inc.) Notion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 86043, subject to the following conditions: 1. No freestanding identification sign for an off-site property listed on the directional signs located at the intersections of Parkway Circle and Shingle Creek Parkway may be readily visible from the public streets. I 2. The applicant shall install street signs denoting Parkway Circle and Shingle Creek Parkway that are consistent with the City's street signs at the two intersections in question prior to release of the financial guarantee for Parkway Place (6601 Shingle Creek Parkway). 12-11-86 -2- 3. The message of the directional signs shall be clearly directional in nature and subject to the height and size requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Variance approval pertains to location only. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86044 (Ed Trombley) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide into two buildable lots the land at the southeast corner of 61st and Colfax Avenues North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86044 attached). Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Trombley responded in the negative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86044) 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 Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86044 (Ed Trombley) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 86044, 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 existing wood shed on the proposed Lot 1 shall be relocated outside of the proposed drainage and utility easement along the easterly 5' of the property prior to release of the final plat for filing at the County. 4. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility hookup agreement prior to final plat approval. 5. No building permit shall be issued for a structure on the proposed Lot 2 until the proposed plat has received final approval and been filed at the County. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 86045, 86046 AND 86047 (Crown Coco, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next three items of business, a site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 4,000 sq. ft. convenience store/gas station on the old Arthur Treacher's site at 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard 12-11-86 -3- (Application No. 86045) ; a request for a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 10' rear yard setback rather than a 40' setback required by ordinance; (Application No. 86046) and a request for a variance from Section 35-704 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow fewer than the required number of parking stalls for the convenience store/gas station. (Application No. 86047) . The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports for these applications (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 86045, 86046, and 86047 attached). The Secretary also pointed out in his review of these applications that access permits from Hennepin County must be received prior to issuance of any building permits. He stated that he had no knowledge of what the County's position would be on such permits. The Secretary also stated that an alternate plan for the site had been submitted at 2:30 p.m. that day. He showed the Commission a transparency of that site plan and noted that it came closer to ordinance requirements, but that staff had not had time to fully evaluate the proposal. Commissioner Nelson asked the Secretary to summarize the staff recommendations. The Secretary stated that the staff recommended denial of the variances and that the site and building plan/special use permit be tabled until an acceptable plan was submitted. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. John Finley, an attorney representing Crown Coco, Inc., then addressed the Commission at some length. He pointed out that a variance relating to the separation of curb cuts had been eliminated. Mr. Finley also stated that there were 35 parking spaces shown on the site plan, but that some stalls were not counted by staff because of the amount of area for driving lanes. He explained that the driving lane did not amount to 24' in addition to an 8' wide area for a parallel parking stall. He stated that if the Planning Commission is comfortable with a reduced driving lane on the outside of the west island and the lane between the easterly island and the building, no variance would be needed on parking. Mr. Finley stated that the main issue is the size of the building and that the most significant variance is the rear yard setback. He explained that most convenience stores being built at present are 6,000 sq. ft. He also pointed out that the proposed rear yard setback of 10' was not significantly different from the rear yard setbacks of other buildings in the area. He added that he could see no real reason for a large rear yard setback. He stated that the site would function better with the building set back further on the property. Mr. Finley also pointed out that a smaller building would contribute less to the City's tax base. He pointed out that the difference in taxes between the proposed building and the existing building on the site not being used is approximately $15,000 per year. Mr. Finley went on to state that the pumps could be realigned on the site to run parallel with Brooklyn Boulevard and to meet the concerns of the staff regarding turning movements onto and off of Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Finley stated that he thought the accesses met the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and was surprised to hear that they would present a problem. Mr. Finley concluded by stating that tabling the application would essentially make the project impossible. He stated that an alternate plan with a 40' rear yard setback is also a possibility. He apologized to the Commission for the slipshod manner in which the application had been submitted and the lateness of the recent submittal. 12-11-86 -4- Chairman Lucht asked the Commission if they had any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there would be room for a car to get by another car at the pumps. Mr. Finley stated that the minimum opening on the outer lane is 25' and for the lane next to the building 261 . He stated that these provide enough space for a car to be parked at the island and for at least one car to bypass. He pointed out that staff recommended a 32' lane to allow for an 8' wide parking stall and a full 24' driving lane for two-way traffic. He acknowledged that the plan provided somewhat less on the driveways at the outer ends of the islands. Commissioner Malecki asked what the colors of the building would be. Mr. Finley responded that it would be brown brick. Commissioner Malecki inquired as to the facia treatment. Mr. Finley answered that that could also be painted brown. Chairman Lucht stated that he had a problem recommending a variance for a use that was not even recommended in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated that he was not convinced of the need for a convenience store in this location. Mr. Finley responded that there are only two convenience stores in a 2 112 mile radius of this site. As to the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Finley noted that the zoning of the property is proper for the convenience store and gas station although it is in conflict with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the zoning designation of the property prevails. Chairman Lucht acknowledged that the gas station use was acknowledged under the C2 zoning district, but that variances to allow such uses were not. Mr. Finley stated that the applicant could meet the parking requirements, but that the real issue is the rear yard setback. He then showed the Planning Commission various pictures of the general area behind the site. He noted that there are no residences immediately adjacent to this site. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the City had to be concerned regarding setting a precedent in allowing a rear yard setback variance. He asked how often cars sit at the pumps while people go in to shop in the store. Mr. Finley responded that this happened quite often. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he thought that would cause a problem because the pumps would be blocked when new gas customers wanted to come in to the site. Mr. Finley responded in turn that this problem would result more from not having enough pumps than from having too many. He stated that providing more parking spaces on the site while eliminating spaces at the pumps might cause problems if people behave the way they generally do at such convenience store/gas stations. The Planner then clarified for the Commission the status for some of the proposed parking stalls. He pointed out that one stall was proposed in front of the dumpster enclosure and that this would not be a permitted location. He noted that two other stalls were not realistic based on the turning movements from the stalls at the gas pumps. He stated that the choice was between accepting stalls at the pumps and stalls elsewhere on the site. The Planner further commented that the concern of staff regarding the access to the site is not the location of the access so much as the ability of the drivers to make smooth turning movements onto the site and avoid possible congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stressed that traffic flow on Brooklyn Boulevard is a very major concern with this application. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 86045, 86046 and 86047) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone else present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Tony Kuefler of 5943 Abbott Avenue North stated that he was also very concerned regarding traffic movement on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that he felt the site seemed too small for the use proposed on it. He recommended that the Commission grant no variances 12-11-86 -5- whatever for the proposed use. He also recommended that no outside storage be allowed at the proposed gas station. He stated that he was concerned regarding the image of Brooklyn Boulevard which is Brooklyn Center's main street. Mr. Kuefler also recommended that the items called for in the staff report be required of the applicant. He concluded by stating that he did want to see the site utilized, but that another gas station in the area may not be wise. He stressed again the need to minimize the impact of a use such as the proposed gas station/convenience store on both Brooklyn Boulevard and on the adjacent neighborhood. Mrs. Diane Reem of 6225 Chowen Avenue North expressed concern regarding the proposed use and access onto Brooklyn Boulevard. She stressed that access onto Brooklyn Boulevard was a major concern of the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan and that the proposed development would complicate the problem by adding another access. She also expressed concern regarding the fact that the convenience store would be open 24 hours, the lighting that would be on through the night and the items that might be sold at a 24 hour store. Mr. Harold Uecker of 3102 Lawrence Road stated simply that he agreed with all of the comments made by Mr. Kuefler and Mrs. Reem. Chairman Lucht then asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he asked the Commission whether they were disposed to continuing the public hearing or closing it. The consensus was that they would probably recommend tabling the matter and the that public hearing should, therefore, be continued. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 86045, 86046 and 86047) ion y-Gommissio-"ner Sandstrom seconded by mmissionere Nelson to continue the public hearing on the applications pertaining to the proposed gas station/convenience store at 6100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Lucht then asked the Commission for their thoughts regarding the requested variances. Commissioner Sandstrom expressed concern over a 24 hour operation and the possibility of outside storage. He stated that these aspects of the operation would not help the image of Brooklyn Boulevard. Commissioner Malecki stated that she agreed with Mr. Kuefler. She stated that granting the special use permit is enough and that variances are not warranted. Commissioner Nelson stated that he did not feel as strongly about the variances. He stated that, as proposed, they certainly seemed excessive. He suggested tabling the variances in the event a slight variance might be justified in light of a revised plan. He stressed that the main concern was to find an acceptable site plan and that without that, the other applications were meaningless. He commented that he did feel 10 feet is too shallow for a rear yard setback. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NOS. 86045, 86046 AND 86047 (Crown Coco, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to table Application Nos. 86045, 86046 and 86047 with direction to the applicant to provide additional information as indicated in the staff report. While the motion was on the floor, Mr. John Finley again approached the Commission and explained the time factor facing the applicant. He asked for a clarification that tabling the matter would put it off until January and that it would not go to the City Council on December 22. Chairman Lucht responded in the affirmative. Mr. Finley suggested the possibility of working with staff in the next few days to iron 12-11-86 -6- matters out and take the application to the City Council, without a recommendation at all if necessary. Chairman Lucht stated that he was opposed to passing applications along to the City Council without a recommendation. He stated that, in the past whenever the Planning Commission has hurried an application along, there have been problems. He stated that in this case, there is nothing to recommend since there is no plan that meets the requirements of the City Ordinance and variances would not be recommended, Commissioner Nelson agreed, stating that there was nothing to gain by rushing the plan to to the City Council without a recommendation. Commissioner Bernards agreed as well. He told the applicant that he appreciated the time constraint, but that the Commission is charged with a duty to do a full review and not simply delegate that to the staff. Commissioner Sandstrom also concurred. Commissioner Malecki pointed out that the land and the building have been standing unused for quite some time and that she saw no reason to suddenly approve a use of the property when it did not meet the requirements of the City ordinance. Mr. Bob DeVere of Crown Coco, Inc. explained to the Commission that the property went to bankruptcy approximately a year ago and that the original bidder did not follow through with the redevelopment of the property. He stated that Crown Coco, Inc. was the second highest bidder and was given the opportunity to pursue development of the property within the limits of the original purchase agreement, which put an end date of January 1 on closing on the property. He stated that they had sought an extension of their purchase agreement, but that the extension was denied. The Planner pointed out that, in all likelihood, no one else would make use of the property prior to January 1, 1987 and that the property would go on the market for new bids. VOTE ON PREVIOUS MOTION Voting on the motion to table Application Nos. 86045, 86046 and 86047 were: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1987 Meeting Schedule The Secretary then reviewed with the Commission the meeting schedule for the Planning Commission in 1987 as proposed. He noted that the August 27 meeting could possibly be cancelled because of the difficulty of the September schedule. He explained that the City Council schedule in September was made difficult by Labor Day and budget meetings. Commissioner Nelson noted a conflict between the June 25 meeting and the Earle Brown Days Parade. The Secretary stated that the staff could watch the agenda in June to see whether it would be possible to combine any applications that come in in the second half of that month with the first meeting in July. Reappointment The Secretary also noted that Chairman Lucht and Commissioners Bernards and Ainas would be up for new terms on the Planning Commission. He urged those whose terms were expiring to contact the Mayor as to their desire in staying on the Commission or not. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to ad ' n the meeting of the Planning Commission. The mot' n passed unani " The Commission adjourned at 10:05 p.m. fY Ch ai 12-11-86 -7- 1 1