Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974 07-11 PCM MINUTES OF TFHE PROCEED.1 N OF T'Tr- PLANNIING, C01"IMISSION OF 7111E 'ly OP BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE C0'J1NT:',' OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF ;71ALL 9'74 Call to order The Planning a,,d was called tc,� L at 8:00 P.ma Roll Call G-to6shans, Also present, wE,2:? inspection Blair TTerm arc, ali Works fames mer.:Lla . Approval of Minutes motion L--, 6-20-74 ccmmmission.er Scott t-, trie June 1.n favor were: chairi,,ian r z: Engdahl, Foreman, Scottt-- , -anC pi(,,-11C-,1. , K ci t. voting: Co=-J-ssJ..ore---,rs were not present aL Lhe Application No. 74035 Following the i .:J L (Earl Rydberg) a--I-em of business was c m� . Ef a ri Ry CIL t c'C'ret;-�r I-St Z_ h om e f 1- J L f r,rma t,10 1 i S - �Id bc� .in .I n I e'd 3-n C-r t Joel v c,r Secretar, n LbE" c 3 cribed the e s s e nt-,la 11 Y,om-z� care .- .O• 1')Y d,-) s i buto r t a t,,--- e n o r ca t i c t Ad -Crlod- be no sigrIc-r1l., !'x a.C`a1 jNrI perh laps Lw-) C, C,1116S11 ng sales I. E + 1%-1; Iq the distributors . C --ii' rnian, Cros «f notified p 5 er,t Mr-.,-tj (-I,n by', 0-,1 1".Lng The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Action Recommending Commissioner Grosshans to recommend ap- Approval of hpplica- proval of planning Commission Application tion No. 74035 No. 74035 submitted by Mr. Earl Rydberg, (Earl Rydberg) 3500 Admiral Lane, subject to the following conditions: 1, The use is subject to all applicable ordinance provisions and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation of the special use permit. 2. Retail sale of merchandise to the public is expressly prohibited. 3. There shall be no outside storage of materials related to the use. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration Application No. 74036 of planning commission Application No. 74036 (B.C.D.C. , Inc.) submitted by Brooklyn Center Development Company. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant was requesting rezoning from R-5 to I-1 of the land generally described southerly of 69th Avenue and east and southeasterly of the Earle Brown Farm Apartment site. He stated that the area in question included the un- developed portion of the site comprehended under the Earle Brown Farm Apartment master plan which proposed three separate 120-unit apartment buildings of which only one has been built. He explained that the applicant ' s intent was to develop the subject land with I-1 uses such as speculative industrial buildings and/or freestanding light industrial uses. The Secretary emphasized that additional planning was needed before a recommendation could be made on the application, in that there were several land use considerations which had not yet been resolved. He stated that one such concern involved the northeast corner of the tract, east of the present apart- ment building parking lot. He noted that the proposed rezoning called for this area to re- main in the R-5 district. He explained that it was essential to con- sider the fate of the parcel as to whether it should remain a freestanding parcel of approx- imately 1.75 acres subject to future develop- ment of a multiple dwelling, or whether the area should be iricorporat6d ,with the existing apartment building and site. He noted the area of the subject tract was comparable to a rectangular area south of the apartment -2- 7/11/74 building which contains two 20-car garages supporting the apartments. He ,stated from a matter of land use planning, it woiild be feasible to incorporate the lout},ej°7.-7 area into the I-1 district and finish developing the northeasterly area per t}ie approved master plan which called for landscaping and parking. He said this would necessitate the need to move two of the garage units from their present location. He stated the underlying consideration was that creation of a freestanding R.-5 remnant be avoided and that such an -act-ion coi.ild be prevented at this time by master planning efforts by -the developer. He also commented that the applicant had sub- mitted two rough conceptual plans for the development of the majority of the I-1 area but said plans were incomplete in terms of site and building plans. Chairman Gross recognized Mr. Stephen Krogness who represented the applicant and a brief dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Krogness commented that it was important to the developer -to get the land rezoned, in that leases had been negotiated with prospective tenants for structures which were to be built on -the tract. Chairman Gros: stated th.e planning Commission policy of referring all rezoning applications to the appropriate Neighborhood Study Group for input prior to final action on developing a recommendation to the City Council. Chairman Gross then recognized Reverend Madsen of the Berean Evangelical Free Church, 6625 Humboldt Avenue North wbc) »tated that the church had no objection to the request. Chairman Gross then waived the reading of the remainder of the names of notified property owners in that none was present. Close Public Hearing Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Foreman to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. An extensive discussion ensued regarding the need for further master planning of the sub- ject site, particularly with respect to the remaining R-5 land not needed for open-area or parking requirements of the Earle Brown Farm Apartments. The Secretary noted that the master landscape plan had called for an ex- tension of a berm along 69th Avenue North and that said berm was in place. He commented, however, that not all of the parking indicated on the site plans had been installed since a portion of that area was scheduled to serve the Phase II of the master plan project. -3- 7/11/74 Mr. Krogness noted that the applicant had submitted a conceptual plan showing the feasibility of establishing a multiple dwelling with required parking in that area. Mr. Krogness also stated that since the access to the I-1 sites would be oriented toward Shingle Creek Parkway, and no further apartments would be built in the area with access onto 69th Avenue North, the traffic generated onto 69th Avenue North would be substantially reduced. The Secretary reiterated an essential con- sideration with the application was that all feasible options be reviewed concerning the use of all of the land in the area, since it would be recommended consistent with established city policy that the subject area be replatted with tracts reflecting the approved zoning. Commissioner Horan inquired as to the nature of the possible future uses in the proposed I-1 area. Mr. Krogness responded that they would most likely consist of a seventh spec- ulative industrial building with at least one initial tenant involved in light manu- facturing and assembly, and at least one single tenant building for another light industrial use. In further discussion Chairman Gross stated that it was essential further input be pro- vided as to the land use planning of -the area and stated that such information should be developed by the applicant prior to referral of the request to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. Following further discussion, there was a Action Tabling motion by commissioner Foreman seconded by Application No. 74036 Commissioner Engdahl to table Planning (B.C.D.C. , Inc.) Commission Application No. 74036 submitted by Brooklyn center Development Company until the August 1, 1974 meeting to allow the appli- cant to develop additional master plan data regarding the use of the subject land, with particular emphasis on the development of the northeast corner of the tract; and further, to permit review by the Northeast Advisory Group once such data had been de- veloped. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration Application No. 740 of Planning Commission Application No. 74038 (Faith Academy, Inc submitted by Faith Academy, Inc. The item was introduced by the Secretary who ex- plained the applicant was authorized a special use permit, for a twelve month period, on August 20, 1973, comprehending a parochial school for grades K-9, involving approximately 75 students in the facilities -4- 7/11/74 of the Berean Evangelical Free Church, 6625 Humboldt Avenue North. The Secretary explained that there had been no history of problems during the past year and that an inspection of the premises had been con- ducted by the Building official and the Fire Chief. Chairman Gross recognized Mr. Leonard Jankowski who represented the applicant as well as Reverend Matson who represented the church. A brief discussion. ensued and Commissioner Foreman inquired as to whether the special use permit should continue on a twelve month basis and be reviewed each year. The Secre- tary responded the recommendation was for in- definite approval in that special use permits are subject to staff review, at least on an annual basis . He statQd that should any problems arise with the special use it would be returned to the Commission and Couilcil for review and reconsideration. Further discussion ensued regarding the number of students at the facility and Mr.. Jankowski commented that 75 students was deemed the maximum considering the size and design of the facilities. Chairman Gross waived a reading of the names of notified property owners since none, was present. Close Public Hearing Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner 1-ioran. to close the public hearing. T_.[A�: motion passed unanimously. Action Recommending Following further discussion there was a Approval of Application motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by No. 74038 Commissioner Scott to recommend approval of (Faith Academy, Inc. ) Planning Coirari.itssion Application No. 74038 submitted by Faith Academy, Inc, , subject to the followi.,ny conditions : 1. The premises will be in compliance with all applicable State and local regulations as to fire safety, health, and building code standards. 2. The use is subject to all applicable ordinance provisions and violation thereof shall be grounds for revoca- tion of the special use permit. 3 . The number of students at any given time shall be limited to 75. The motion passed unanimously. Recess : The meeting recessed at 9 :00 p.m. and re- sumed at 9 :20 p.m. -5- 7/11/74 The next item of business was consideration Application No. 74039 of Planning Commission Application No. 74039 (Ronald Clark) submitted by Mr. Ronald Clark. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant seeks permission to have a recrea- tion center in the Humboldt Square Shopping Center, 6800 Humboldt Avenue North. He stated that the use requires a permit ac- cording to Section 35-322 (3 ) . He .noted the applicant had submitted written information to the file describing the nature of the Center and certain management procedures which would be followed. Chairman Gross recognized the applicant and Mr. Hallisey representing the management of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. An ex- tensive discussion ensued regarding the nature of the use and the applicant explained that it would consist of various electronic and mechanical coin-operated devices such as pinball machines and billiaz`d tables , and that consideration was being given to including a can-dispensing softdrink vending machine as well as a candy vending machine . In re- sponse to an inquiry by Commissioner Foreman the applicant responded he did not intend to apply for a beer license . Chairman Gross stated his concern with the provision for adequate management and the applicant responded that at least one manager would be on the premises at all times and that at peak periods such as on weekends, at least two qualified management personnel would be on the premises . He stated he hoped to hire a manager who came from the Brooklyn Center area and that in no case would it be anyone under the age of 25. Mr. Hallisey and the applicant commented that the proposed location for the center would be in a 1,400 square foot portion of the complex facing 69th Avenue North. Mr. Hallisey noted that other proposed lessees had been considered for similar uses, and had not been accepted. He stated the applicant had previous experience and what the management of the center considered to be a quality operation. In further discussion the applicant stated the facility was oriented towards local young people , and would consist of nineteen to twenty-one machines . Chairman Gross commented as to several operations which he had observed in the area and was vitally concerned with adherence to established curfew hours. He suggested that the houserules and the local curfew be posted in the establishment and enforced rigorously. -6- 7/11/74 Commissioner Scott commented that she felt there was a need for such a facility for younger people but that she agreed with Chairman Gross concerning the enforcement of applicable curfew hours and houserules. Chairman Gross waived the reading of the names of notified neighboring property owners in that none was present. Close Public Hearing Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. In further discussion the applicant explained the intent to provide parking racks for bicycles and his intent to post the houserules and established hours of curfew. Action Recommending Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Approval of Application Commissioner Portman to recommend approval No. 74039 of Planning Commission Application No. 74039 (Ronald Clark) submitted by Ronald E. Clark subject to the following conditions : 1. The use is subject to all applicable ordinance provisions including special licensing requirements and violation thereof shall be grounds for revoca- tion of the special use permit. 2 . The special use permit shall be issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and shall be nontransferable . 3 . Houserules and hours of local curfew regulations shall be clearly posted in the establishment and rigorously enforced. 4. Provision shall be made for bicycle parking racks located in a manner approved by the Department of Planning and Inspection. 5. The special use permit shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission one year from date of issuance . The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 74040 The next item of business was consideration (Gabbert and Beck, Inc. ) of Planning Commission Application Noy. 74040 submitted by Gabbert and Beck, Inc. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant was seeking site and building plan approval for. an approximate 66, 000 square foot enclosed mall retail center to be located westerly of the Dayton's Home Store . He stated the applicant ' s site plan includes the existing retail building which houses Hirschfield' s Paint Store and North- west Organ Company. -7- 7/11/74 The Secretary explained that the property was presently subject to a major utility easement consisting of several power poles and guy-wire foundations. He stated the submitted plans comprehend construction of the retail center, with various site design concepts proposed to accommodate the power easement initially, and to eventually utilize the easement areas when vacated. He noted the applicant had stated that Northern States Power Company was planning a reorientation of the power lines, possibly within two years, and would vacate the easement when the lines were rerouted. Chairman Gross recognized Mr. Warren Beck, representing the applicant, and Mr. Peter Jarvis, representing the firm of Bather, Ringrose, and Wolsfeld, the design and architectural consultant for the applicant. Mr. Jarvis explained the planning considera- tions for the project including the difficult nature of the subject parcel resulting from the earlier development of the four corners of the larger tract. He stated that an effort was made to not only conform with City Requirements but also to provide the applicant with maximum exposure , effective and efficient access, and good traffic flow through the project. Mr. Jarvis reviewed the site and building plans noting the two proposed phases of development, consisting of the ultimate master plan and the initial development plan which comprehend the accommodation of the existing power poles and guy-wires. Mr. Jarvis also commented as to the proposed landscaping plan stating that it was de- veloped as an entity or "landscaping state- ment" which accentuated the aesthetics of the center. He stated that it was both functional, in that it provided screening to the center, as well as complimentary to the area. An extensive discussion ensued and the Secretary noted several concerns which should be addressed by the Commission. He noted that the calculations for parking which were based upon the gross floor area of the facility called for an exemption of the 8, 700 square foot internal circulation area. He stated that this was consistent with the plan approval for the Brookdale Center. He also stated that the site plans re- flected a requested deferral of approxi- mately 95 parking spaces under the first phase of the plan and approximately 73 spaces under the ultimate master plan. He stated that the applicant contends the spaces are considered to be unlikely, at -8- 7/11/74 least during the early stages of the develop- ment, and that the area for those spaces could be better utilized for landscape pur- poses to enhance the large lot. The Secretary explained the applicant had in- cluded what were termed "Proof of Parking" plans for both phases, demonstrating that the required parking could be provided when deemed necessary. The Secretary continued that there was some precedent for deferring parking in the cases of large developments , and that this applica- tion differed somewhat, since in previous cases the deferred areas had been incorporated into perimeter green areas or large identi- fiable open areas (as in the case of the recently approved Kennedy-Cohen Appliance Center, and the Shingle Creek Tower I Apart- ment building) . He stated, however, that the proposal had merit in terms of providing. character and aesthetic treatment to the parking lot. Chairman Gross inquired whether the ,amount of parking to be deferred could be diminished by utilizing those areas around the power poles and guy-wires . He stated that there was a substantial amount of available land in the area near Xerxes Avenue as well as areas on the west and north sides of the site , which could be developed. He further commented that he was impressed by the use of the large de- lineators throughout the parking lot for land- scaping purposes and did not question their aesthetic value . He inquired whether sub- stantive planning had gone into providing additional parking so to reduce the deferred amount. Mr. Jarvis responded that the feasi- bility of using other areas had been con- sidered, but that based upon the applicant ' s experience with a similar center in Edina, the parking would not be initially needed. The Director of Public Works commented that the staff had examined means of providing for the ordinance required parking other than that indicated on the submitted "Proof of Parking" sheets . He stated it was possible to pro- vide for most of the deferred parking spaces utilizing those areas pointed out by Chair- man Gross. Mr. Jarvis commented, however, that the applicant strongly felt there was merit in deferring the indicated amount of spaces and that he fully realized his obligation to pro- vide such spaces if the City determined it was necessary at a future date . The Secretary stated another concern was with -9- 7/11/74 respect to the proposed loading area to be located on the west side of the building. He commented that the floor plan of the building called for a service and emergency corridor running through the building with the rear entrances to shops on either side . He stated the exterior door of this corridor was to serve as the primary entrance for shipping and receiving. He explained that while the plans met the ordinance require- ments as to dimensions for loading berths, there was need for delineation and degree of visual screening from the loading area. He noted a primary concern was with the po- tential for large trucks backing up to the designated doorway, and that a horizontal and verticle delineator would prohibit that movement. The Secretary noted, however, that the sub- mitted plans only indicated such a delinea- tor at the main entrance to the service corridor, while the building plan indicated other entrances along',the west side of the center. He recommended that delineators be provided in those locations as well so to inhibit the backing of trucks as well as to define the loading area from the automo- bile driving lane . Mr. Jarvis responded that the precise loca- tion of exterior doors along the west side of the building other than the main service door had yet to be finalized, but he stated that delineators similar in design and of proportional size could be provided at the additional entrances. In further discussion Commissioner Engdahl inquired as to provision for refuse disposal, particularly for the area intended for a restaurant. Mr. Jarvis responded that pro- vision had been made that all refuse and trash disposal areas would be totally en- closed and that there would be no outside storage of any materials, particularly refuse . He noted that the prospective tenant areas were subject to rearrangement including the proposed restaurant. With respect to the restaurant, he stated that the 5, 000 square foot, 125-seat facility called for in the plans represented a maximum. In, further discussion the Director of Public Works noted an area on the perimeter of the site along Trunk Highway 152 contained a minimal amount of landscaping and that this, combined with the depressed parking lot de- sign, should be perhaps viewed in terms of providing additional landscape screening. An extensive discussion ensued and Mr. Jarvis responded that the area was intentionally de- -10- 7/11/74 signed as indicated, as part of the overall landscape treatment so to provide a view of the building. He noted that since the park- ing lot was depressed from the street level, the view from Brooklyn Boulevard would be one of the building, over the cars . The Secretary noted that a specific landscape plan had not been provided for the initial phase and Mr. Jarvis responded that the same landscape provisions as indicated on the ultimate master plan would be provided in the initial phase except for those areas subject to further refinement upon vacation of the power easement. The Secretary recommended that a separate plan, or overlay indicating the actual landscape treatment be provided prior to the City Council meeting to clarify the intended development. Commissioner Horan inquired as to what planning had gone into signery provisions and Mr. Jarvis presented a scale model of the development in- dicating the type of uniform signery which would be required around the exterior wall of the building. Mr. Beck commented that the in- tent was to provide for freestanding signery identifying the center. The Secretary responded that in the case of the entrance towers which projected above the actual roof line , the applicant had been in- formed that signery would only be permitted on those tower facia, below the roof line and would be considered part of the wall signery. Chairman Gross and Commissioner Engdabl stated their concern as to the provision for ordi- nance required irrigation of all landscaped and green areas throughout the site . Com- missioner Engdahl noted that the landscap- ing plan called for irrigation of all sodded areas and he inquired as to how this com- pared with the ordinance requirement. The Secretary stated that all landscaped areas, including sodded areas, would be irrigated and that this should be noted on the plans prior to the Council meeting. Chairman Gross stated that the irrigation should in- clude those large delineators which were to contain landscaping as well as all perimeter areas . Action Recommending Following further discussion there was a Approval of Application motion by Commissioner Horan seconded by No. 74040 Commissioner Foreman to recommend approval of (Gabbert and Beck, Inc. ) Planning Commission Application No. 74040 sub- mitted by Gabbert and Beck, Inc. , subject to the following conditions : 1. Building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits . -11- 7/11/74 2 . Grading, drainage , utility, and bprming plans are subject to review by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits . 3 . A performance agreement and financial guarantee (in an amount to be deter- mined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of the approved site improvements . 4. Installation of certain parking stalls as indicated on the approved site and parking plans may be de- ferred until deemed necessary by the City Council, provided said de- ferred areas are developed, land- scaped, and maintained according to approved site plans and ordinance requirements. 5. Site plan shall be subject to review two years from date of approval, with respect to deferral of certain site improvements necessitated by the exist- ing Northern States Power Company ease- ment, unless said easement has been vacated and said approved improvements are under construction or are com- pleted. 6. Approval is exclusive of building plan approval for the freestanding building on Xerxes Avenue North as indicated on the submitted site plans . 7. With respect to the loading area on the west side of the building, addi- tional delineators similar in design to the one indicated on submitted plans shall, be provided as approved by the Department of Planning and Inspection, adjacent to each installed entrance to the center or individual establishments therein. 8. All landscaped areas on the site shall be provided with underground irrigation. 9. All trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately enclosed and screened from view. 10. A specific landscape plan compatible with the proposed initial site plan comprehending the existing utility easement shall be submitted prior to City Council review of the applica- tion. The motion passed unanimously. -12- 7/11/74 Application No. 74037 The next item of business was consideration (Lemon Tree Restaurant) of Planning Commission Application No. 74037 submitted by Jimmy' s Lemon Tree Restaurant, Inc. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant was seeking special use permission to develop accessory off-site parking as provided in Section 35-701 to support the Lemon Tree Restaurant at 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated the proposed site is that originally approved for the Green Giant Restaurant on November 20, 1972 (Application No. 72079) . He stated the site of the proposed parking was easterly of the restaurant across the service road, south of Midwest Federal and northerly of McDonald ' s Restaurant. He stated the applicant had submitted an identical site plan which comprehends 36 additional spaces to support the existing 68 spaces on the main site . A brief discussion ensued and Chairman Gross waived the reading of the names of notified property owners in that none was present. Close Public Hearing Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Action Recommending Following a brief discussion relative to the Approval of Application provision for B-612 curb and gutter and sod- No. 74037 ding along the perimeter, there was a motion (Lemon Tree Restaurant) by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Pierce to recommend approval of Planning Com- mission Application No. 74037 submitted by Jimmy' s Lemon Tree Restaurant, Inc. , subject to the following conditions : 1. Drainage , grading, and berming plans are subject to review by the City Engineer. 2 . Evidence showing the accessory site as being legally encumbered for parking purposes to the main site shall be submitted to the City. 3 . A performance agreement and financial guarantee (in an amount to be deter- mined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved improvements . The motion passed unanimously. Adjourment Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to adjourn the meet- ing. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11 : 50 p.m. e Chairman -13- 7/11/74