HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970 12-03 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the
Planning Commission for the City
of Brooklyn Center in the County
of Hennepin and State of Minnesota
December 3, 1970
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called
to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:05 P.M.
Roll Call: Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Henry Bogucki,
Karl Schuller and Paul Ditter. Staff members present: James Merila
and Tom Loucks.
A motion was made by Karl Schuller and seconded by Paul Ditter
to approve the minutes of the study meeting of October 28, 1970,
and the regular meeting of November 5, 1970. The motion carried
unanimously.
Following the Chairman's explanation the first item of business
was Application No. 70060 submitted by Ernst, Lane and Ernst (White
Castle) requesting rezoning from R1 to C2.
The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who explained
that the owner, Ernst, Lane and Ernst, Inc. , is requesting rezoning
of Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Lane's Brooklyn Center Addition, from
R-1 to C-2 to facilitate a need for additional parking for a pro-
posed White Castle Restaurant and the existing convenience center
located on Brooklyn Boulevard.
Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Beyer, Attorney-at-Law,
representing Ernst, Lane and Ernst. Mr. Beyer stated that his
client had held in ownership Lots 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11,
Block 2, Lane's Brooklyn Center Addition, for a number of years,
but acquired ownership of Lot 5 within the last two years. He
stated that until the acquisition of Lot 5, it was very difficult
to re-develop the existing commercial property in an appropriate
manner. He then indicated that the request for rezoning on Lots
4 and 5 to C2 (Commercial) is needed to provide parking and a
solution to flow and traffic distribution within the existing
convenience store and proposed White Castle Restaurant development.
Commissioner Bogucki asked Mr. Beyer if he was aware of the
proposed Brooklyn Center sidewalk network and expressed concern that
the proposed driveway to be located in front of the convenience
center would be in direct conflict with pedestrian traffic on
Brooklyn Boulevard.
Mr. Beyer stated that he was not aware of the sidewalk program,
but indicated that if there was a conflict, his client would be
willing to work with the City to resolve it.
Mr. Loucks stated that the staff had recognized that sidewalks
may be constructed on Brooklyn Boulevard in this area and noted
that there would be 15 feet between the curb of the service drive
and the applicant's west property line and an additional 4 feet
of right-of-way on Brooklyn Boulevard in which to construct such
a facility.
Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Hays of the White Castle
Systems who briefly summarized the White Castle Systems operation
and their objective in locating in Brooklyn Center.
�,
'..
l
i;.
4
r
-2-
Mr. Hays then explained the site plan as proposed by White
Castle and noted that the Hennepin County Highway Department had
informed his company that they would not be allowed a curb cut on
69th Avenue North because of the potential traffic conflicts that
would result from such a cut. He then indicated that White Castle
is proposing two curb cuts on June Avenue as an alternative. He
stated that the proposed curb cut on Brooklyn Boulevard will
restrict egressing movements to right turn only and due to that
restriction and the problem of no direct access to 69th Avenue North,
they need additional ingress and egress on June Avenue.
Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. William Johnson, Project
Engineer for White Castle, who stated that the requested access on
June Avenue is a necessity in terms of adequate traffic circulation
and movement within the White Castle property.
Chairman Jensen asked Mr. Hays what the operating hours for
the proposed restaurant would be. Mr. Hays indicated that it would
be a 24 hour operation.
Chairman Jensen then asked if they had ever considered operating
on anything other than a 24 hour operation.
Mr. Hays noted that White Castle has traditionally located in
downtown locations and that this is one of their first attempts to
locate in a suburban area and that something other than a 24 hour
operation could be feasible, but could not guarantee such a change
in operational hours because it is a policy that would have to be
determined by the Company's Board of Directors.
Chairman Jensen then asked Mr. Hays if White Castle had con-
sidered constructing a brick and mortar wall on June Avenue and
in the area between the Ernst, Lane and Ernst property .instead of
a wood fence as proposed on their site plan.
Mr. Hays indicated that they would prefer to construct a fence
similar to the one now located on the North Star Dodge property
because it has been their experience that brick and mortar walls
cannot be repaired immediately if damaged during the winter months
and would prefer not being in the position of having screening
devices in a state of disrepair for long periods of time.
Chairman Jensen then asked what their position would be if the
Commission insisted upon a brick and mortar wall.
Mr. Hays stated that White Castle would not be willing to dis-
pose of their interest in the site if a wail was desired by the
Commission.
Chairman Jensen then asked the affected property owners in the
audience if they had any comments on the proposal.
C. P. Linton, Mrs. C. P. Linton, R. P. Trainor, H. M. Drehmel,
J. A. Schrugren, C. W. Franson and J. H. Guest concurred that they
would be opposed to the commercial zoning and the White Castle
development because the streets east of the site are already
heavily traveled because of the St. Alphonsus Church property to
the North and felt that additional traffic created by a restaurant
would make the streets hazardous; the odors from a restaurant
facility would be annoying; and further, that a restaurant with a
24 hour operation would have a disruptive effect upon the neighborhood
in the late evening and early morning hours.
1
1
1
-3-
J. D. Gunderson and Mr. G. Moen stated that they would not be
opposed to the requested rezoning and development.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by
Commissioner Schuller to close the Public Hearing on Application
No. 70060. The motion carried unanimously.
The Planning Commission then reviewed some of the comments
made during the public hearing and noted specifically that attentiq
should be given to the interface of C2 (commercial) zoning with the
residential development east of June Avenue, the desirability of
placing two curb cuts on June Avenue and the ramifications of a
24 hour restaurant operation in close proximity to single family
homes.
Chairman Jensen then polled the Commission of the disposition
of the impending application.
Commissioner Ditter felt the matter should be table to allow
the Commission time for a detailed analysis of the application.
Commissioner Schuller concurred with Commissioner Ditter.
Commissioner Bogucki concurred with Commissioners Schuller
and Ditter and added that the Commission should get additional
traffic information in regard to June Avenue.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by
Commissioner Bogucki to table Applications 70060 and 70061 to allow
further analysis of the applications and requested the City Manager
to initiate a traffic survey on June Avenue between 69th and 70th
Avenues North to determine:
1) Existing traffic conditions in that area;
2) What effect two driveway openings from the White Castle
would have on the character of June Avenue;
3) If• r-ome of the traffic congestion caused by the St.
Alphonsus Church can be eliminated.
The motion carried unanimously.
The next item of business was discussion of 110" sideyard set-
backs as it related to the tabled Standard Solvents Application
No. 70045 and future applications.
Mr. Loucks explained that the Commission may have bben misled
by the staff in that Section 35-400(3) of the zoning Ordinance was
utilized to justify the Standard Solvent Company's request when
it was acted upon by the Commission in August, 1970.
Mr. Loucks further indicated that the subsequent Council
action on the Application had noted the error in ordinance inter-
pretation and remanded the application to the Commission directing
it to re-consider the 110" sideyard setback ramifications as proposed
by the applicant.
Mr. Loucks then reviewed the application for the Commission
noting the aforementioned descrepancy and other plan considerations
that were not discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of
August, 1970.
1
1
1
-4-
Mr. Dave Hegaard, repres-rating Standard Solvents., then made
a brief presentation iA kegard to the application, indicating
what he considero# problems with their site -and further indicated
that variances of a similar nature had been granted to other
property in the same vicinity.
After a brief discussion among the Commission, there was a
consensus that there should be a field trip to take a look at the
industrail district at 50th and France and further, that the
Standard Solvent Company's application would be reviewed by the
Commission in January of 1971.
The Planning Commission next discussed impending business to
be taken up by the Commission in December, 1970, and January, 1971.
It was indicated that the next Planning Commission study
meeting would be held on December 22, 1970, and the Commission
directed the staff to prepare an agenda for that meeting based
upon the most pressing problems.
Motion was made by Commission Schuller and seconded by
Commissioner Ditter to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 12:01 A.M.
1
1
1