HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 01-21 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the
Planning Commission of the City of
Brooklyn Center in the County of
Hennepin and State of Minnesota
January 21, 1971
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to
order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:03 P.M.
Roll Call: Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Karl
Schuller, Paul Ditter, Robert Foreman and Cecelia Scott. Staff
members present were: James Merila and Tom Loucks.
Motion was mace by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by
Commissioner Ditter to approve the minutes of December 22, 1970,
and January 7, 1971. Motion carried unanimously.
Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of
business was Applications No. 70060 and 70061 submitted by Ernst,
Lane and Ernst (White Castle) requesting rezoning of Lots 4 and 5,
Lane's Brooklyn Center Addition, from R1 to C2 and site and building
plan approval for Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, Lane's Brooklyn
Center Addition.
The applications were summarized by Mr. Loucks who indicated
that the Commission had held a public hearing on the matter
December 3, 1970, and that the Commission's disposition of the
matter was to table the applications to allow further analysis
and request the City Manager to initiate a traffic study on June
Avenue between 69th and 70th Avenue North.
Chairman Jensen then recognized City Engineer, James Merila,
and requested that he review the traffic study for the Commission
and members of the audience.
Mr. Merila stated the intention of the study was to determine:
1) Existing traffic conditions in the area of June Avenue;
2) What effect two driveway openings would have on the
character of June Avenue; and
3) If the traffic congestion caused by St. Alphonsus
Church could be reduced.
Mr. Merila briefly summarized the traffic analysis and
recommended the following:
1) That because of existing traffic conditions in the area,
June Avenue should be utilized in such a manner as not
to contribute to traffic congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard
and 69th Avenue North.
2) That the placement of two one-way driveways on June
Avenue would be appropriate to avoid any possible
traffic congestion at the subject site, it being
contended that the character of June Avenue would
not be significantly changed because its existing
character is not that of a purely residential street.
3) That a traffic routing pattern is being developed for
St. Alphonsus Church to relieve traffic congestion
problems in the area.
1
1
1
-2-
Mr. Loucks indicated that there were two modifications to the
site plan as originally submitted by White Castle. He stated that
the original proposal indicated that the area in front of the
building at the intersection of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard was
to be utilized as a landscape green strip approximately 50 feet
in width. It was indicated that a modified plan denotes a 15 foot
green strip, parking spaces, and a driveway. He stated that it
would appear that the elimination of that green strip would serve
as a detriment to the aesthetics of the project and suggested that
the absence of a large green strip at this point changes the
character of the proposal to such an extent that it would probably
be worthwhile to determine if the re-development of the property
would be any more desirable than the existing situation.
Additionally, he noted that the intersection of 69th and
Brooklyn Boulevard has a very minimum boulevard width (plus or
minus four feet) and indicated that that width, in addition to the
15 foot green strip proposed at the intersection, would give only
19 feet of depth between the curb line and parking areas.
Mr. Loucks further indicated that the redwood fence proposed
on the orignal site plan had been changed to one consisting of
brick columns augmented with redwood fencing. It was recommended
that the site and building plans should be denied as presently
submitted because of the lack of adequate landscaping.
Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Robert Hayes of the
White Castle Restaurant Systems who indicated they do not take
opposition to the City Engineer's recommendation in regard to
traffic flow (two one-way driveways on June Avenue, one on the
north designated as entrance only and one on the south as exit
only) , but did indicate that their amended site plan, as submitted,
is a more desirable situation to facilitate traffic flow within
the lot while at the same time providing adequate parking. He
further stated that without this flow, it is the contention of
White Castle that they could not operate efficiently and therefore
would not develop the site.
Chairman Jensen then called upon the residents of the area
and it was the consensus of those individuals in the audience that
the White Castle development would serve as a detriment to the
neighborhood and indicated that they opposed the rezoning request
and the proposed site plan.
Chairman Jensen then noted that this area had been given
considerable thought during_ the adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan and subsequent rezoning procedures that the City went through.
Fie indicated that the Commission, at the time of these actions,
recognized that this area would probably undergo change.
Chairman Jensen then asked Mr. Hayes of White Castle if they
had given any consideration to operating less than a 24 hour
operation. Mr. Hayes responded that they had addressed themselves
to this proposal at the December 3rd meeting and that it was still
the position of White Castle that they have traditionally operated
on a 24 hour basis and would prefer to continue in that manner
unless conditions were such that economics or other problems would
dictate somewhat lesser hours of operation.
Mr. Ditter then expressed the opinion that the re-development
of the property may be a somewhat better situation than the one
that exists.
1
1
1
-3-
Commissioners Schuller and Scott agreed with Mr. D itter's
assessment of the situation.
Motion was made by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by
oyal of
Commissioner Schuller. to recommend to the City Council approval
Lane's
Application No. 10060 requesting rezoning to C2 (Commercial) .
Brooklyn Center Addition from Rl (Single Family)
tiotion carried unanimously.
The planning Commission next discussed the applicant's site
and building plans submitted for approval.
Commissioner Schuller indicated that he was concerned with the
lack of landscaping on the parcel at the tersectiondofmoreht and
Brooklyn Boulevard and felt that the applicant
provide additional aesthetic considerations on the site. Mr. Hayes,
of White Castle, stated that they recognized the need for
aesthetic considerations on this site and indicated that, in
accordance with the ordinance, they had met all the requirements
and further indicated that it was the position of White Castle
that if they were to remove the parking and driving areas at 69th
and Brooklyn Boulevard, it would be difficult to operate a fast
food service without proper traffic flow.
After a rather lengthy discussion, a motion was made by
Commissioner Schuller an
seconded by Commissioner Ditter to
recommend to the City Council approval of the site and building
plans subject to the following conditions:
1) Eliminate three parking stalls described as 7, 8,
and 9 at the intersection of 69th and Brooklyn
Boulevard, and designate them as part of the 15
foot green strip;
2) That the north curb cut on June Avenue be designated
as "entrance only" ;
3) That the south curb cut on June Avenue be designated
as "exit only" ;
4) That the curb cut on Brooklyn Boulevard be designated
as "right turn only" for exiting vehicles;
5) That final approval for lighting of the driving and
parking areas be withheld until completion of
construction and adjustments;
6) That specifications for restaurant equipment be
submitted to the Health Sanitarian for approval prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
7) Building plans are subject to the approval of the
Building Inspector with respect to applicable building
codes;
8) Utility, drainage and elevation plans are subject to
the approval of the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of a building perm3.t;
9) A performance agreement and performance bond (in an
amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted to the City t9 guarantee the site improvements
as designated on the plans submitted to the City.
Motion carried unanimously.
1
1
-4-
The Planning Commission recessed at 10 P.M. and reconvened at
10:15 P.M. Commissioner Bogucki arrived at 10:15 P.M.
The next item of business was Application No. 70045 submitted
by Standard Solvents, Inc. 71he application was introduced by Mr.
.Loucks who explained that the Commission had approved a zero side
yard setback related to the application on August 6, 1970, and
the Council had subsequently tabled action on the matter and
remanded it to the Commission to review setbacks as it related to
this application and future applications. The claim was recognized
that earlier precedents had been set in the 50th and France area
because of the existanee of a number of minimum side yard setbacks.
However, Mr. Loucks contended that a distinction can be drawn
between the previous variance situations and the current application.
The previous setback variances for the most part involved relatively
incidental extensions of existing structurally sound buildings.
In contrast, the current application, in essence, is a phased
proposal to erect a completely new enterprise and therefore the
proposal should be looked at as though the site were vacant.
There seems to be no compelling need for a variance v�?hether the
proposal was implemented in either a phased or an unphased manner.
Mr. Loucks suggested that the type of operation on the pro-
posed site is very hazardous because of the use of volitale liquids,
and setback is of considerable irn±oortance to provide room for fire
fighting purposes and separation from existing structures in the
area.
Additionally, it was noted that there are deficiencies on the
site plan as submitted in regard to delineation of parking stalls
and surfacing of parking and driving areas and the green strip
requirement. It was recommended that the side yard variance be
denied because the applicant has failed to show a hardship other
then indicating that the situation exists with other businesses
in the area, and because the type of operation is such that
it would be unreasonable to further endanger the safety and welfare
of persons and businesses in the area.
it was further recommended that the site plan be denied
because there was non-conformance with the existing ordinance
requirements.
Commissioner Schuller then asked the applicant if there was
any other hardship involved in the variance request. The applicant,
Mr. Dave Hegaard representing Standard Solvents, indicated that
from an economic point of view, without the variance, it would 'be
impossible for them to re-develop their business. He further
indicated that they were attempting to eliminate what could be
termed as a bad situation. Commissioner Bogucki indicated that
there becomes a time in which the Commission should take a stand
on granting unfounded variances for yard setbacks. He stated that
he did recognize that there has been a number of variances granted
in the area, but further recognized that some of the problems of
the area have been created by granting those variances. He
further indicated that the application before the Commission .. .
should not be granted because of the additional considerations
of the hazardous nature of �the use.
Commissioner Foreman then agreed with Commissioner Bogucki,
but indicated that he was concerned about the past precedents that
had been set in the area.
1
1
1
-5-
Commissioner Schuller indicated that he recognized the
precedent claim, but felt that a decision must be made based upon
merit and not necessarily any alleged precedent set in the area.
Commissioner Ditter commented that he felt there were
exceptional circumstances giving merit to a zero side yard setback
and felt it was reasonable, if for no other reason, to grant a
variance in order to improve a very bad situation.
Commissioner Scott indicated that she would not want to
see the precedent extended in the SOU& and France area.
Chairman Jensen commented that he would like to see the area
redeveloped and specifically this parcel redeveloped, but was
also concerned about the probability of extending the precedent
of zero sideyard setbacks.
Motion was made by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by
Commissioner Bogucki to recommend to the City Council denial of
Application No. 70045 requesting a zero side yard setback because
the applicant failed to show hardship, and further, because the
site plan does not conform with existing ordinance. Those voting
in favor were Commissioner Bogucki, commissioner Scott and
Commissioner Schuller. Those voting ac;ai.nst were Chairman
Jensen, Commissioner Ditter and Commissioner Foreman. Motion
for denial did not carry for lack of majority vote.
The next item of business was appointment of a Chairman and
vice-chairman of the Planning Commission.
Motion was made by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by
Commissioner Ditter to re-appoint Robert Jensen as Chairman of
the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman
Jensen did not vote.
Motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by
Commissioner Schuller to appoint Robert Grosshans as Vice-chairman
of the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously.
Motion was made by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by
Commissioner Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried
unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:15 A.M.
Chaff a
1
1
1