Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 03-02 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota March 2, 1972 The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:00 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Grosshans, Foreman, Scott and Engdahl. Also present were: Director of Public Works James Merila, Chief Building Inspector Jean Murphey and Administrative Assistants Blair Tremere and Daniel Hartman. Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to approve the minutes of the February 17, 1972 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72012 submitted by Harold Stechel. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated that the applicant is requesting site and building plan approval for a 1,000 square foot addition to the existing store and warehouse located at 6822 Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated the addition will be built of steel and masonry and will have a fire resistive separation from the existing building. The Secretary further noted that the old garage located on the south side of the warehouse will be removed and the driving and parking area will be upgraded to comply with the code. He commented further that a canopy will be added to the front of the retail area with an attempt to improve the appearance of the establishment. He stated that a total of 22 parking stalls were required, using a ratio of 15 for the retail use, and 7 for the warehouse use; and that the applicant had provided for a total of 23, with another serving as a turn-around area. Chairman Jensen recognized the applicant who explained that, while the business activity of the establishment was primarily retail, the actual building use was that of a warehouse distribution point for electrical contractors. The Director of Public Works noted that the applicant had provided for storm sewer drainage, whereas none existed now, and he noted that sod would be used in front and that curbing would be delineated along the perimeter of the parking areas except for those next to the existing building. The Secretary stated that the applicant intended to remove an existing roof sign and install a canopy. Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Grosshans, seconded by Commissioner Bogucki, to recom- mend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72012 submitted by Harold Stechel requesting site and building plan approval. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary next introduced Planning Commission Application No. 72013 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park and stated that the applicant is requesting site and building plan approval for a one story restaurant building with a seating capacity of 154 to be located at 5915 John Martin, Drive. He further explained that the applicant had recently submitted plans for the Uncle John' s Restaurant which were substantially ixoproved from those initially presented to the staff. ,x ... . . - _. I .. . ,. , :. _. _ , III -2- The Secretary also noted that the ordinance required restaurants to provide one parking space for every two seats and one space for every two employees on the average maximum shift. He noted that this would require a total of 82 spaces. The revised site plan as submitted shows 89 parking spaces will be provided. Commissioner Gross arrived at 8:45 P.M. Following a brief discussion relative to the site and design of the proposed restaurant, there was a motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Foreman to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72013 submitted by B.C.I.P. , Inc. , subject to the following conditions: 1. Roof top mechanical equipment will be screened; 2. Drainage and utility plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 3. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 4. - A performance agreement and performance bond (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee the site improvements as designated on the plans submitted. The motion carried unanimously. The Secretary next introduced Planning Commission Application No: .72014 submitted by B.C.I.P. , Inc. requesting site and building , plan approval for a one story 10,000 square foot service-office - building to be occupied by Johnson Service Company and located at 1801 - 67th Avenue North. fihe Secretary also introduced a companion application-,- No. 72015, requesting approval of a variance on the number of parking spaces for the subject property. He recommended that the variance appli- cation be considered jointly with the site and building plan appli- cation since action on the variance request could have a- bearing on .the development of the site. The Director of Public Works commented relative to Application Vn. _72014 that while the site and building plans conformed to the literal provisions of .the City Ordinances, the staff had certain reservations regarding the placement of the building on the subject property. He noted that the staff' s concern was based on aesthetic considerations as well as good' planned land use. He noted that the building was situated in such a manner that parking was provided to the front at the James Avenue entrance to the site, and that the building was to be situated near the west property line, with the windows of the office-use portion of the building facing what could very well be the parking area of any future development on the adjacent parcel. Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Steven Krogness, representing the applicant, who stated that the submitted plans had been approved after much deliberation at the home office of the Johnson Service ._ Company, and that it is what the applicant wanted to develop. He noted that the submitted plans WFre completely within the ordinance provisions. ''" -3- Responding to a question from Chairman Jensen, Mr. Krogness commented that to consider alternative site plans would involve significant cost factors in that additional land and design expenses would be realized. The Director of Public Works stated that it appeared that only approximately 10 additional feet would be required with a slight alteration of the shape of the building. The Director of Public Works further stated that, as with all plans submitted by developers, the staff was concerned that the plans should be aesthetically pleasing and representative of good planning principals. Commissioner Bogucki stated that he agreed, and that this consideration was a fundamental of quality site planning and was noted in the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Jensen stated that the basic question was to determine what extent the Commission could or should go, in stipulating aesthetic considerations. The Director of Public Works responded that in this case, the applicant owned a substantial parcel, much of which was not indicated as being used and probably would not be used in the near future; thus, the building could be re-designed and made more rectangular, for example, without the acquisition of more land. Chairman Jensen stated that it was important that all possibilities should be explored in attempting to work out an agreement mutually acceptable to the City and the applicant. The Director of Public Works noted that the submitted plans were dated February 25th, and the staff had taus not had the normal amount of time to analyze the proposal and discuss possible alter- natives fully with the applicant prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Jensen also recognized Mr. Penk representing the applicant who stated that the submitted plans offer a continuity with other developments in the industrial park area, whereas the proposal suggested by the staff would tend to disrupt the continuity. Commissioner Gross responded that the staff's concern and suggestion with regard to the aesthetics of the proposal, were sound and that the basic question was to what extent the City could require an alteration in the submitted plans as a matter of aesthetic policy. Responding to a question by Commissioner Foreman relative to the ramifications of the companion application, No. 72015, the Secretary explained the proposed parking situation. He stated that to determine the number of spaces required by ordinance, it was first necessary to classify the type of land use and then calculate the gross floor area occupied by that use. He stated that in this case, the building has a total gross floor area of 10,000 square feet with about 7,000 square feet of office use, and 3,000 square feet of area used for servicing of equipment and storage of parts. He continued, that using a formula of one space for each 200 square feet of office area, and one space for each 800 square feet of shop and warehouse area, 39 parking spaces were required. He stated that the applicant contended that 30 parking spaces were sufficient for his particular operation and that past experience bears this out. He also noted that a letter had been received from the manager of the Johnson Service Company, which was placed on file, stating 1 1 1 -4- that should it become necessary to employ more people, Johnson Service Company would increase the parking area. The Secretary read from Section 35-704 (3) Industry and Whole sale from the City Ordinance. He stated that if the land use is determined to be solely Industry and Wholesale, then the 30 spaces proposed by the applicant were sufficient. Chairman Jensen noted, however, that the applicant's letter indicated that 70/ of the building space would be for office use whereas, only 30/ would be for warehouse purposes, and he inquired as to whether a variance, per se, was actually required rather than an appeal to the intezp retation of the use of the proposed building. The Secretary stated that if the parking requirements were figured on the basis that the majority use of the building was for office purposes, approximately 50 spaces would be required. He added that if the parking requirements were figured on the basis that part of the use was for office purposes, and part was for warehouse purposes, 39 spaces would be required. He stated that, in effect, the applicant is appealing those calculations, stating that a maximum of only 30 spaces would be sufficient; and that, given the interpretation of a combined office-warehouse use, the Commission is being asked to consider a difference of only 9 spaces. In response to a question by Commissioner Engdahl, the Chief Building Inspector stated that all spaces that would be indicated on the approved site plans would have to be finished with the project. Chairman Jensen and Commissioner Grosshans commented that since the applicant has indicated that the use of the building would be predominately office, the Commission should follow the ordinance requirements and the staff calculations that 39 spaces would be required. Mr. Krogness commented that it would seem the Commission was utilizing C2 zoning requirements rather than Il, which was the zoning classification of the subject property. Chairman Jensen responded that the determination should be made on the basis of actual land use. A brief discussion ensued relative to the basis for determining parking requirements and Commissioner Foreman stated that the requirements should be based upon zoning classification. In response to the comment by Chairman Jensen that the incidental office use was a significant factor as well, Commissioner Foreman inquired at what point an incidential use became significant enough to be considered with the zoning classification in determining parking requirements. Chairman Jensen stated that, in any case, the Commission was not actually considering a variance, but rather whether to delay the full number of required parking spaces for the applicant, thus making a judgement of the staff interpretation of the land use. Chairman Jensen then polled the Commission and determined that it was the consensus that the full requirement of 39 parking spaces should be required, with nq exception or delay granted in the construction. Motion by Commissioner Gross4pps, seconded by Commissioner Foreman to recommend denial of Planhing Commission Application No. 72015 submitted by B.C.I.P. , Inca, The motion passed unanimously. 1 1 1 -5- Relative to Application No. 72014, Chairman Jensen said that while he agreed with the staff' s concern with the aesthetics of the proposed development, he also appreciated how difficult it could be for the applicant to get alterations of the design approved. Commissioner Bogucki stated that while he recognized that the sub- mitted plans were within the ordinance provisions, he felt that B.C.I.P. should have had more input during the initial stages of the client' s plan preparation. He stated that the proposed layout adds little to the aesthetic development of the overall area, and while the site situation with regard to parking, may have been established with other projects in the industrial park, that didn't preclude a variation on this or future projects. Commissioner Grosshans stated that substantial grounds for denying the present application were not apparent, but that further consideration should be given to other sites in this regard. Mr. Krogness reiterated that the parking design conforms with that used in other projects and Commissioner Grosshans responded that each site, including the present project, is a different situation and should be reviewed on its own merits. The Commission meeting recessed at 10:00 P.M. and resumed at 10:20 P.M. Following further discussion relative to the application and the staff's concern for the aesthetic design of the project, there was a motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner Bogucki, to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72014 submitted by B.C.I.P. , Inc. subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 3. A performance agreement and performance bond (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee the site improvements as designated on the plans submitted. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was a discussion of accessory off-street parking not located on the same property with the principal use. The Secretary stated that the staff was presently researching this and would have a draft ordinance for the Commission' E, consideration at the next study meeting. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance presently considers all off-street parking to be an accessory use and incidental to any permitted use and that all off-street parking must be located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory. He further stated that a number of requests have been received seeking approval for accessory pff-street parking not located on the same property with the principal use, and that possibly by