Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 08-08 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota August S, 1972 The Planning Commission met in special session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:05 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Jensen, Coruaissioners Bogucki, Grosshans, Foreman, Scott and Gross. Also present were: Director of Public Works James Merila and Administrative Assistant Blair Tremere. Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Scott to approve the minutes of the June 22, 1972, meeting as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded by Commissioner Grosshans, to approve the minutes of the June 6, 1972, meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Grosshans, Scott and Gross. Commissioner Foreman abstained explaining he was not present at that meeting. Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Gross to approve the minutes of the July 13, 1972, meeting as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. The first item of business was consideration of Planning CK14maissi_on Application No. 72065 submitted by the Pillsbury Company seeking site and building plan approval for a Poppin' Fresh Pie Shop to be located at 5601 Xerxes Avenue North. The item was intro- duced by the Secretary who stated that the applicant intends to renovate the building formerly occupied by the King's Food Host Drive In Restaurant as well as to substantially upgrade the land- scaping of the parcel. He noted that the remodeling of the building included the construction of a small addition on the northerly side of the building to be used as a drive up facility for pick up of merchandise. He noted that the seating plan indicated a capacity of 104 persons and that there was provision for 68 parking stalls. The Secretary further stated that the concerns of the staff related to the curbing around the driving and parking areas, whether the lighting of the site would be modified from the existing lighting and proposed landscaping of the site. Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Jim Kerwin, a representative of the applicant, who further explained the plans and the intent of the applicant to upgrade the site. Relative to landscaping, he explained that the applicant had contracted with a professional landscape architect and he presented the proposed landscaping plans. He noted the use of some artificial plants in those areas where it was felt natural growth would not be sustained. He further commented that all lighting of the parking lot and site would conform to the ordinance. Mr. Kerwin further noted that the plans to be submitted to the Council for approval would indicate various revisions discussed with the staff, including the use of B612 type curbing in those areas where curbing was to be installed. i _2_ Mr. Kerwin further commented relative to the operation of the Pie Shop and stated that it was similar to the operation in Hopkins, Minnesota. He further noted that the drive up facility was intended only for pick up of pies and that no drive-in restaurant service was provided. Commissioner Engdahl arrived at 5:25 P.M. A brief discussion ensued regarding the landscaping as well as proposed renovation of the exterior of the building. Chairman Jensen noted that the applicant did not have a side elevation or rendering of the proposed structure other than the drawing of the Hopkins store. He explained to the applicant that a rendering of the exterior of the proposed structure should be made available for the Council review of the plans. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Gross to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72065 submitted by the Pillsbury Company, subject to the following conditions: 1. Utility and drainage 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 designated on the plans submitted; 4. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery; 5. Any modifications of the existing lighting of the site shall conform with ordinance requirements. Motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was continued discussion of the proposed off--site parking ordinance amendment. Chairman Jensen briefly reviewed the joint discussion held with the City Council on August 7th and noted that the basic philosophy of the proposed ordinance had been accepted and that the Commission, in effect, had been instructed to work out the more technical aspects of the requirements and restrictions. Commissioner Foreman stated his concern with the provision that the special use permit would be available only for businesses which had been in existence in the same location for two years. He stated his recommendation that in condition "A", the words "to existing" should be eliminated and replaced with "for", so that the requirement read: "Permit shall be issued for business or industrial uses located on the same site for at least two years". Commissioner Grosshans reiterated his concern with condition "B" which referred to off-site properties which were legally encumbered for parking accessory to the principal use. He inquired as to how this legal encumbrance could be accomplished. The i 1 i 1 -3- Director of Public Works noted that this would be a gunetion gQf the special use permit and that these were means by Whicli a parcel dould be legally encumbered for a specific use. The Secretary futth4k commented that such encumbrance could be placed oil file -with thb deed for a particular parcel of land indicating to a future pros- pective buyer such land was encumbered for that use. Commissioner Bogucki and Chairman Jensen commented that the attorney should review the mechanics of providing for legal encum- brance of such parcels. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the possibility of including a maximum percentage of parking spaces which would be required on the accessory use site. Commissioner Engdahl reiterated his proposal for a formula providing for a ratio, wherein each off- site parking space would be the equivalent of 1/2 space of the required parking for the principaluse. He noted that this would allow for possible vertical expansion of the parking facility as well as for any unforeseen increases in the capacity and parking needs of the principal use. The Secretary responded that establish- ment of such a maximum appeared to diminish the flexibility of the special use permit. Commissioner Gross commented that he was opposed to the use of accessory parking for credit purposes towards the parking requirements of the principal use, particularly without specific controls such as a maximum. Chairman Jensen then polled the Commission relative to the need for a maximum percentage of the total required parking which would be permitted on the off-site parking facility, noting the provision in the draft of the ordinance for a minimum of 20 parking spaces. Commissioner Engdahl, Gross and Foreman commented that they felt there should be a maximum set and Commissioner Engdahl further com- mented that it would appear 20% of the total required parking should be the maximum allowed off-site. Chairman Jensen noted that four Commissioners felt that the minimum should be retained and that there was no need for a maximum, while three felt the maximum should be established. In further discussion, Commissioner Grosshans stated that it appeared there should be some language written into the ordinance stating that the need for additional parking would not be an acceptable grounds for rezoning. He noted that this would be similar to the requirements for meeting standards to grant a variance. A brief discussion ensued relative to the zoning requirements of the off-site parking. Member Henry Bogucki introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED OPP STREET PARKING AMENDMENT WHEREAS, the business community within the City continues to prosper as overall City growth and development approaches maturity; and WHEREAS, business success is observed to be often expressed by desires to expand many business enterprises; and 1 1 1 -4- WHEREAS, a major obstacle in the expansion of existing businesses consists of the inability of specific enterprises in essentially built-up areas to meet expanded off-street parking requirements of the principal use site; and WHEREAS, in such instances, it is desirable to provide for accessory parking in off-site locations with certain assurances: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RECONDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER that Chapter 35 of the City Zoning Ordinances shall be amended by adding thereto the following sections: Section 1. Section 35-320 is hereby amended by adding thereto: 3. Special tJs" (a)-- Accessory off-street parking not ,located on the same property with the principal use.. Section 2. Section 35-321 is hereby amended by adding thereto: 3. Special Uses (a) Accessory parking not located on the same property with the principal use. Section 3. Section 35-322 is hereby amended by adding thereto: 3. (k) Accessory off-street parking not located on the same property with the principal use. Section 4. Section 35-330 is hereby amended by adding thereto: 3. (e) Accessory off-street parking not located on the same property with the principal use. Section 5. Section 35-331 is hereby amended by adding thereto: 3. (c) Accessory off-street parking not located on the same property with the principal use. Section 6. Section 35-701 (3) is hereby amended to read as follows: 3. Spaces accessory to uses Located in a business or industrial district shall be on the same lot as the uses served unless a special use permit authorizes accessory off-street parking not located on the same property with the principal use. Special use permits authorizing such parking will be issued subieet to the following conditions: a. Permits shall be issued only for business or industrial uses located on the same site for at least two years. b. Permits shall be issued only for off-site properties which are legally encumbered for parking accessory to the principal use. C. A minimum of 20 ,parking spaces shall be provided on the off-site parking facility. -5- d. The distance from the furthest point of the accessory off-site parking to the site of the principal use sha 11 not exceed 300 feet. e. Accessory off-site parking shall be Bermitted only on sites located in districts zoned Commercial (Cl, CIA, C2) and Industrial (I1, I2) f. The site of the accessory parking shall be located so that pedestrian traffic will not be required_ to cross the following roadways to reach the principal use: (1) Major thoroughfares as defined in Section 35-900; (2) 55th and 56th Avenues North between Xerxes Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard; (3) Summit Drive; (4) 66th Avenue North between Lyndale and Camden Avenues North. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Robert Grosshans, and upon vote being taken there- on, the following voted in favor thereof: Robert Jensen, Robert Grosshans, Henry Bogucki, and Cecelia Scott; voting against were: Robert Foreman, Carl Gross and Gilbert Engdahl. The motion passed. Commissioner Foreman explained his negative vote in that he felt a maximum should be established; Commissioner Gross explained his negative vote was due to the need for more research relative to the off-street parking provisions in other communities; and Commissioner Engdahl explained his vote was based upon the concern for the establishment of a maximum percentage as well as his feeling that full credit should not be allowed for the off-street parking. In further business, there was a motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded by' Commissioner Bogucki to defer consideration of the Planned Residential Development proposed amendment to the August 17th study meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Gross, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. o- C i n