Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 07-13 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Iii THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN .AND THE STATE OF. MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JULY 13, 1978 CITY HALL - CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl. ROLL CALL Cha Engdahl, Commissioners Malecki, Jacobson, Book, Hawes and Theis. A!so present were Director of Public Forks James Merila, Superintendent of Engineering Jams Noska, Administrative Assistant Mary Harty, Building Official Will Dahn, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. - -APPROVAL OF MINUTES (PLANNING COMMISSION) 6-22-78 Notion by Commissioner Ma ecki seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to approve'the minutes of the June 22, 1978 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners 'Malecki, Jacobson, Hawes and Theis. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Book who stated he was not present at that meeting. APPLICATION NO. 76054 (.Brookdale Ford} Foil owing the Chairman's explanation the first item of business was consideration of Application No. 76054 submitted by Brookdale Ford. The Secretary stated the item was review of a revised master plan and landscape plan for the property located at 2500 County Road 10. The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and explained the history of the application. He stated that it had been approved by the City Council on October 4, 1976. He continued that one of the conditions of approval N,as that a revised master plan and detailed landscape plan would be submitted for further review. He stated that the status of the matter had been reviewed by the Planning Commission 'n June of 1977, and that it had been explained at that time that the revised master plan and landscape plan had not yet been completed. He explained that the delay was due, in part, to negotiations with Northern States Power Company to acquire or lease the NSP property located directly north of the Brookdale Ford site. He continued that the applicant had acquired the property and was now submitting site plans for review in accordance with the conditions of approval . The Secretary commented that the revisions were minor and would require review only by the Planning Commission. The Secretary explained that one of the revisions on the master plan called for" the eventual closing of the existing curb cut onto Shingle Creek Parkway. He further explained that the applicant was negotiating the purchase of a triangular piece of property to the northwest of the site and that Brookdale Ford eventually proposes a future access to this property from Shingle Creek Parkway in that area. 7-13-78 "A In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl , the Secretary stated.that 0-612 curb and gutter was required around the entire site. He stated that a temporary rolled bituminous curb,rather than a concrete curb, would normally be recommend in the area where the applicant's property abuts the triangular piece of property in lieu of the possibility that this property might be purchased in the near future by Brookdale Ford. Chairman Engdahl questioned whether it was the applicant's intent to ask for deferral of the installation of the B-612 concrete curb and gutter. The City Engineer responded that the plans showed B-612 curb and gutter for that area, and that the applicant should be questioned as to their intentions. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Don Powell , who represented the applicant, and asked whether the applicant intended to install concrete curb and gutter at this time. Mr. Powell replied the applicant did not seek deferral since.major revision would be necessary in that part of the site if a curb cut were to be installed. Chairman Engdahl asked whether the underground irrigation system was in place. Mr. Powell responded that it was not, but it was indicated on the plans for the entire perimeter greenstrip on the site. A discussion ensued relative to the landscaping plan. The City Engineer explained that with the original approval of the application, the applicant had indicated concern with planting trees along County Road 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway because of obscuring view of the display areas. He continued that, because of this concern, shrubs were indicated for the areas along County Road 10 and Shingle Creek Parboay and trees were indicated on the plan for the east side of the site. Commissioner Theis asked whether the applicant was using that triangular piece of property at present. Mr. Powell responded in the negative. Chairman Engdahl asked whether there was an outstanding bond on the project. The City Engineer responded that a bond had been submitted in the amount of $25,000.00. The City Engineer explained that installation of storm sewer would be required when the proposed curb cut was installed. He further explained that this would probably be a cooperative effort with the developer to the north. The City Engineer also explained that replatting of the property was required by City Ordinance because the property consisted of a number of parcels. He stated that Section 35-540 requires that a common development under coamon ownership ,be contained on a single parcel . Commissioner Hawes questioned when the applicant would install the new curb ctt. The City Engineer responded that it would be installed as soon as the property was acquired. The Secretary explained that the master plan was conceptual in nature and should be reviewed again at the time of the development, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 76054 ,(Brookdale Ford Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 76054 subject to - the following conditions: 1 . Site grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject .to approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 7-13-78 -2- 2. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site I rro vements and Shall include the installation of storm sewer with the development of a new curb cut to the north. 3. All landscaped areas, including perimeter greenstrips shall be equipped with underground sprinkling systpirs as approved by the City Engineer. 4. The property shall be replatted as r-?q-sired by Section 35-540 of the City Ordinances. 5. The conceptual master plan shall bF, siibjpct to furthor review with future development. motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 78040 (Michlitsch Builders) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78040 submitted by Michlitsch jilders. The Secretary stated the applicatiop was for preliminary approval of a registered land survey of the property located at 6637 Humboldt Avenue North. The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and explained that the City Council had approved Planning Commission Application No. 78027 consisting of a master plan for the above property on May 3, 1978. He continued that platting of the property was a condition of approval of that application, and would clear up the existing iuetes and bounds legal description. -he Commission reviewed the preliminary plat. ThE City Engineer noted that an additional 10 foot sidewalk easement should be provided along the east property line. He explained that an easement had been obtained for walkway purposes at one time, but had never been recorded against the property. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl announced that a public hearing had been scheduled. It was noted no one spoke relating to the application. Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Leon Michlitsch, representing the applicant. Mr. Michlitsch stated the applicant had no objection to providing an additional 10 ft. easement for walkway purposes. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78040_ (Michlitsch Builders) Motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 78040 submitted by Michlitsch Builders subject to the following conditions: 1 . The final R.L.S. is subject to review by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. An additional 10 foot sidewalk easement shall be provided along the east side of the property. The motion passed unanimously. 7-13-78 -3- APPLICATION NO. 78041 (Cates Construction) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78041 submitted by Cates Cony struction. The Secretary stated the application was for site and building plan approval of an office building to be located off John .Martin Drive south of Perkins Restaurant. The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and pointed out the unique configur ation of the property. He explained that the private roadway leading from John Martin Drive to the Cinema I, II, III, IV Theater and the Perkins Restaurant was actually part of this parcel, and that it was covered by driveway easements for joint use of three parcels. The Secretary continued that the property was zoned C-2 (Commercial Retail) and that the applicant proposed to develop it with an approximate 6,000 sq. ft. office building, a C-1 (Service/Office) use. He stated that, in order to meet the parking requirements of the C-2 District, the applicant had submitted a Proof of Parking Plan which showed the use of the Cinema I, TI, III, 1V Theater property to the south as joint parking. In response to questions 'from Chairman Engdahl and Commissioner Book, the City _ Engineer explained that the roadway was a private roadway covered by driveway eas�- ments for use by the Cinema property, the Perkins property and the subject prope.,,ty. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether the joint parking was also with the,Perkins Restaurant property and the Cinema Theater property. The City Engineer explained that the joint parking involved only the Cinema Theater property and the subject property. He explained that with the development of a previous proposal for the property, the owner had filed an easement for parking purposes on the area of the Cinema Theater parking lot which was proposed as joint parking under this appli- cation. He stated that an approved joint parking agreement would have. to be executed for the use of the Cinema Theater .property by the office building. In response to questions from the Commissioners regarding provisions for utility:: • to the site, the City Engineer stated that utilities were not now available. He stated that one way of providing utilities would be across the vacant parcel ad- jacent to the Perkins Restaurant. He explained that a utility easement on that property would .be required. The Commission reviewed the site plan and a discussion ensued. Commissioner Jacobson stated she felt there should be a walkway from the property to the joint parking area. The City Engineer commented that that could be provided. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Joe McCarthy, representing the applicant. NO stated there was no objection to providing a walkway to the joint parking area. A brief discussion ensued relative to the joint parking agreement. Commissior:L�. Jacobson inquired whether the documentation should be provided before City Council review of the application. The City Engineer stated that a joint parking agreement . was a condition of the approval, and that it would be executed in a manner ap- proved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. In response to a question from Chairman. Engdahl , Mr. McCarthy stated that the building was proposed to have two spaces. Part of the building would be occupied by the owner and part of it would be leased to a tenant. In response to a further question from Chairman Engdahl , Mr. McCarthy stated that there would be no mansard roof, but that the building would be block with a rock faced exterior and all roof- ' top mechanical equipment would be screened. 7-13-78 -4- In a discussion regarding the landscaping and the need for provision for hardwood trees, the City Engineer explained that the Subdivision Ordinance requires hard- Wood trees on the boulevard, but that for commercial developments the Zoning Ordinance speaks only to landscaping which is approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council . He noted that in this particular development, there would be no boulevard landscaping. Commissioner Theis commented that he would prefer to see hardwood trees included in the landscaping for commercial developments. In further discussion of the site and building plans the Secretary noted that handicapped parking and accessibility provisions :sere indicated on the plans. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78041 (Cates Construction) Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 78041 submitted by Cates Construction subject to the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the "'Wilding Otficial witi respect to applicable codes prior -o the is-,u",,?ce of permits. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and dp?roval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3 A 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 improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equip- ment shall be appropriately screened. 5. The parking space deficiencies shall be resolved through an approved joint parking agreement per Section 35-720 with the property owner who owns the adjacent land designated for parking. The approved agreement shall be filed as encumbrance on the adjacent land des- ignated as parking prior to the issuance of permits. 6. The developer shall provide copies of executed private easements for utility service to the subject property as approved by the City Engineer. -7. The developer shall enter into a standard utility maintenance agreement as approved by the City Engineer. 8. A sidewalk shall be provided between the property and the joint parking area. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 78042 (Roy Hansen for B.C.I .P. , Inc.) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78042 submitted by Roy Hansen for B.C.I.P. , Inc. The Secretary stated the application was for preliminary approval of a registered land survey for the property located at Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North. The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and explained that the City Council had approved Application No. 78036 on July 10, 1978, and that one of the provisions of approval of that application was that the property be subdivided by plat or registered land survey prior to occupancy of the building. -5- 7-13-78 { i 7 The Commission reviewed the preliminary registered land survey. The Secretary : stated it was recommended that separate tracts be provided for the Shingle Creek greenstrip from 69th Avenue North to F.A.I,. 94 and for the area where the proposed Shingle Creek Parkway will pass over Shingle Creek and the area where the existing Freeway Boulevard passes over Shingle Creek. The City Engineer explained that this was recommended to simplify the legal description of the parcels of land which would be dedicated for roadway. and park purposes. Chairman En, dahl recognized Mr. Al Beisner, representing the applicant, who stated . 9 9 P 9 PP there was no objection to the recommended modifications of the registered land , survey. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman fngdahl announced that a public hearing had been scheduled. It was noted -no one spoke relating to the application. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded + by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing The motion passed unaniwouri,i- RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78042 (Roy. Hansen for B.C.I .P. , Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Jaco son seconded y Commissioner Book to recommend approvals of Application No. 78042 submitted by Roy Hansen for B.C.I.P. , Inc. subject to the following conditions: 1 . The final R.L.S. is subject ta'' review by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. The motion passed unanimously. i APPLICATION NO. 73044 (Robert Adelmann) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78044 submitted -by Robert Adelmann. The Secretary stated the applicant soughtsite and building plan approval and special use amendment for an add•!tion to an existing automobile service station. The Secretary explained that the applicant proposed to add two additional stalls w the existing car wash and two service bays. He commented that the effect of the proposal would be to have the car wash westerly of its present location to provide a drive-through car wash. He stated that gasoline service stations were special uses in the C-2 (Commercial Retail ) District. The Secretary further explained that the' building -addition would require a redesigd • ation of the parking for this site as well as increase, in the total number.of spac :, required. He stated 420 spaces were regUired and 24 were shown on the proof of parking plan. He noted that parking had been eliminated along this green area ad- jacent to th` neighboring multiple-family residential property. The, Commissic,n re- viewed the site and building plans. Commissioner Jacobson questioned whether the trash disposal facility would be accessible to the garbage trucks as it was located on the plans. Superintendent of Engineering James Noska responded that it would probably be accessible. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether.a one-way curb cut could be required. The City Engineer stated that there was no real advantage to be gained in designating the curb cuts near the intersection as one-way. He commented that, , if a traffic problex developed in the future, the curb cut closest to the inter- section could be cicsed. 7-13-.78 - The Secretary stated that with the addition the building would exceed 2,000 sq. ft. in area and installation of an automatic fire extinguishing system would be required. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant. In response to questions from the Comis- sioners, the applicant stated that the exterior of the addition would match the existing building, and that he was aware that installation of an automatic fire ex- tinguishing system was required. Commissioner Theis questioned whether the required 6 foot screen fence was in place. The applicant.-responded that it was. Commissioner Hawes asked whether the applicant proposed any additional blacktop. The applicant responded in the negative. The City Engineer stated chat, because of the addition, it was recommended that the existing storm sewer be either lined with cast iron pipe, or that it be moved in order that it not be located under the building. The Secretary noted that the plans which were submitted had not been certified by a registered architect or a cer-'-ified engineer. He stated that the plans must be certified before City Council consideration, of the application. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl announced that a public hearing had been scheduled. It was noted that none of the notified neighboring property owners were present. Motion by Com- missioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. In futher discussion, Chairman Engdahl inquired if any change in the landscaping was proposed. The Secretary responded that none was proposed. In response to further questions, the Secretary stated that the screen fencing on the site was in good condition. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION N0. 78044 (Robert Adelmann) Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to recommend approval of Application No. 78044 submitted by Mr. Robert Adelmann subject to the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site Performance Agreemcnt 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 improvements. 4. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 5. Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 7-13-78 -7- 7. The entire building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to,meet NFPA Standard No. 13, 8. Plans shall be certified by a' registered architect and certified engineer prior to review by the City Council . The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:40 p.m. and resumed at 10:00 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 78045 (Mr. Ems System, Inc.) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78045 submitted by Mr. Ems System, Inc. The Secretary explained the application was for site and building plan approval and special use permit for a restaurant to be located on James Circle. The Secretary explained the application was for one of the tracts; of the subdivision approved under Application No. 78021 , and was located south of the Earle Brown Lanes Bowling Alley now under construction. He continued that commercial uses are special uses in the I-1 (Industrial Park) District and reviewed the requirements for C-2 uses in the I-1 Zone. He continued that the proposal had .been reviewed against these criteria and seemed to be compatible. The Commission reviewed the site plans. The City Engineer stated that some revisions of James Circle were recommended for.better.`traffic flow, `including.an installation of an island i n-.the cul.-de-sac which would .prov i-de for one-way traffic flow to the: . ,. property, The Secretary stated that 92 parking spaces were required for the project and that 93, including two handicapped spaces were shown on the parking plan. He noted that handicapped a cc fsibility'was also provided on the building plans. A discussion ensued relative to the site and building plans. In response to a question From Commissioner Jacobson, the Secretary stated that the mansard roof treatment proposed was for all four sides of the building. He also stated that the trash disposal facility was to be enclosed, and that the, exterior treatment tea:; similar to that of the buildinj. A brief discussion ensued relative to the traffic flow. In response to a question from Commissioner Theis, the City Engineer stated that there was no advantage to an in-out one-way flow. In response to another question from Commissioner Theis; the City Engineer explained the ordinance standards for parking spaces and driving lanes. Commissioner latices inquired re"iative to the proposed signery. The Secretary stated that plan approval was exclusive of signery, but that it appeared the applicant proposed a freestanding sign on- the side of the building adjacent to the freeway. Chairman Engdahl noted that site lighting should be directed away from the highway. The City Engineer responded that it would be directed towards the building and away from the frePwys 7-13-78 -8- Chairman Engdahl noted that the plans called for aluminum shingles and questioned whether this was permitted. He commented that approval of the recent application for a 7 Eleven Store had required cedar shingles, and recognized Building Official Will Dahn who spoke to the matter. The Building Official explained that the aluminum roof treatment of the 7 Eleven Store had included signery incorporated into the roof, and that this application did not include any signery in the roof treatment. He briefly explained the criteria for permitted signery. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Kristal , who represented the applicant, and Art Dickey, the architect, who showed photographs of imilar Fmbers Restaurants. Commissioner Theis inquired relative to the deliveries. Mr. Kristal responded that most deliveries were made at night, and should not affect the parking. In response to a question from Commissioner Hawes, Mr. Dickey stated that the parking in front of the building would be most heavily used, and that they probably would not need all of the parking provided. In response to .a question from Chairman Engdahl , the City Engineer explained that the purpose of the berm was to shield the parking and the paved areas from view of the freeway. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl announced a public hearing had been scheduled. It was noted none of the notified property owners was present. Motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78045 (Mr. Ems System,_Inc_.l Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 78045 submitted by Mr. Ems System, Inc. subject to the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Site, grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the Ciiy 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. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 5. The permit is subject to all applicable ordinances, codes, and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 6. The property shall be subdivided by plat or registered- land survey prior to the issuance of permits. 7. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7-13-78 -5- 8. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all sirnery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City .Ordinances. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: APPLICATION NO. 78032 (R. L. Johnson) -In other business the Secretary briefly reviewed the status of Application No. 78032 submitted by R. L. Johnson for rezoning of the property west of Brooklyn Boulevard at the city limits. He stated that the Neighborhood Group had met and minutes of the meeting had been received. He inquired whether the Commission would consider the application during its next scheduled meeting, a study meeting. _ Chairman Engdahl stated he had no objection to reviewing the tabled application at the study meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to review Application No. 78032 at the next scheduled meeting. Commissioner Theis commented that he had been present at the Neighborhood Group meeting, and stated he felt 'the neighbors considered an office building adjacent to the Creek to be acceptable. He stated he was concerned with the loss of potential housing units if the rezoning were approved. He asked that the revised Metropolitan forecast for housing to be provided by Brooklyn Center be made avail- able for this study meeting. A brief discussion ensued relative to the importance of retaining residentially zoned land for potential future housing needs. PLANNING CONSULTACIi The Secretary stated that the Planning Consultant was scheduled to meet with the Commission at its study meeting. The Secre�ary also explained that n application had been taken for a special use permit for a home occupation which was essentially in order. It was the consensus of the Commission tu review the sp cial use permit application at its study meetinc,. JAMES O'BRIEN CONCEPTUAL PLAN Also, in other business, the . re ary briefly reviewed a conceptual plan for the property located at 70th and Camde Avenues North. He stated that plans had been approved for this property under Application No. 77048 for an apartment complex' known as Spanish Quarter. He stated that Mr. O'Brien now proposes a project of two unit single-family attached condominium units which are permitted uses in the R-3 (Townhouse and Garden Apartments) District. He stated the property was zoned R-4 (Multiple Family Residential ) which includes R-3 uses. A discussion ensued. Chairman Eng ahl inquired whether a Homeowners Association would be a requirement of approval The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Chairman Engdahl also inquired whether there would be any difference between tha traffic generation of an R-3 use as opposed to-an R-4 use onto Highway No. 169.` The City Engineer responded that there was essentially no difference in traffic generation. Commissioner Theis pointed out that he was concerned with .the loss of units. The Ci ;y Engineer stated that with the decrease in density, there would be a loss of approxi►nately 4 units per acre, approximately 50 units. Chairman Engdahl commented that tho use was,'less traffic intense than the apartment complex already approved, and he felt that the idea was a marketable one. 7-13-78 -10 C'ommiss Toner Book stated that he felt it was a reasonable development for an R-4 yoned property. He continued that he was not sure whether loss of units from an R-4 development should be an issue in considering such a proposal . The Secretary commented that the issue was one of philosophy of housing. Commissioner Theis reiterated his concern with the loss of potential housing units. . He stated he felt the Commission should review the matter further. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposal presented in concept had merit and could be further reviewed as an application. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 0 :05 p.m. —` Chai pan 7-13-73 -11- 1 1 1