Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 05-16 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 16, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Kristen Mann, and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF _MINUTES - APRIL 11, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the April 11, 1991 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Bernards and Johnson. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91007 (Real Estate Financial Consultants Inc and Ivan and Hazel Vetterick) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for approval to rezone from C1 to R5 an approximate 30' x 100' strip of land along the back of the property at 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report ` (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91007, attached) . During his presentation, the Secretary reviewed a plat drawing of the two lots in question on. an overhead transparency. He also explained the history of the property at 4010 65th Avenue North and the suspension of the rental license and how the property came to be bought by the Vettericks. The Secretary concluded by reviewing the draft resolution of approval of the rezoning with the five reasons listed. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Ivan Vetterick stated that he had nothing to add. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 91007) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. 5-16-91 1 CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes noted the need for parking lot screening and asked whether there was a need to add a condition to the resolution. The Secretary explained that that was required as part of the plat approval and that there was no need to add a condition to the rezoning application. He added that the applicants will bring the plat back to the City Council for final approval. RESOLUTION NO. 91-4 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91007 SUBMITTED BY IVAN AND HAZEL VETTERICK AND REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Mann and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann, Bertil Johnson, and Mark Holmes and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. APPLICATION NO. 91008 (Welsh Companies, Inc. The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for approval of sign variances for three freestanding real estate signs at 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway, and 5951 Earle Brown Drive. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91008, attached) . The Secretary explained that the lack of enforcement over the last few years has been a result of a number of factors including a change of personnel, the complexity of the existing ordinance, and the fact that no permit is required for real estate signs. The Secretary stated that a 32 sq. ft. sign is easy to identify and an ordinance limit of 32 sq. ft. would be fairly simple to enforce. The Secretary reviewed the draft ordinance amendment, including a provision relating to signs painted on commercial vehicles. He concluded by stating that staff do not recommend the variance application because the situation is not really unique and that the hardship being experienced by the applicant is not greater than that experienced by other people trying to lease space in their buildings. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the prohibition on using vehicles as signs would be applicable to garage sale signs that are tacked onto a vehicle. The Secretary stated that it would probably not be considered a violation if it was confined to the property where the garage sale was being conducted. Commissioner Bernards asked about a case where a vehicle might be parked at a corner in 5-16-91 2 order to advertise the garage sale. The Secretary stated that that might indeed constitute a violation. Commissioner Bernards inquired as to the permit fee that would apply to a 32 sq. ft. real estate sign if a permit were required. The Planner pointed out that the fee is $30.00 for the first 50 sq. ft. The Secretary stated that he did not have a problem going without a permit for real estate signs. He noted that real estate signs are supposed to be temporary signs and that permits are generally required only for permanent signs. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to the use of trucks and banners for special sales. The Secretary explained that such signery can be allowed by administrative land use permit for a limited time. He explained the background of the ordinance regarding signs painted on commercial vehicles. He noted that there had been a truck parked at Westbrook Mall with a sign on it advertising a business and service within Westbrook Mall and that it was parked for long periods of time and really acted as a freestanding sign. He stated that this type of abuse was precisely what this ordinance was aimed at eliminating. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the real estate signs for the buildings across the street were noncomplying. The Secretary responded in the affirmative and stated, that they had been sent letters regarding the violation. He explained that project identification signs sometimes get turned into space for lease signs after the project is built. Commissioner Bernards asked what period of time would be involved in the adoption of a new ordinance. The Secretary stated that it would take about 45 days to adopt a new ordinance, but stated that the old ordinance would not really be enforced as long as the ordinance amendment was being pursued. Commissioner Johnson asked how long it would take to prosecute a noncomplying sign. The Secretary stated that it would be pursued with a misdemeanor tag which must be responded to within seven days. He went on to review the prosecution process and stated that it might go as long as three or four months. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Dick McGinley, of Welsh Companies, asked that the Commission both grant the variance and adopt an ordinance amendment. Chairperson Malecki responded that staff had recommended that the variance be denied, but that the ordinance be amended. She asked the Commission how they felt regarding the request. Commissioner Ainas also stated that the variance should be denied, but that the ordinance should be amended. Other Commissioners generally agreed. Mr. Kent Warden, of the Building Owners and Managers Association of Minneapolis (B.O.M.A. ) stated that he felt the ordinance amendment 5-16-91 3 it I II