Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 11-21 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 STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER 21, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7. 1991 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the November 7, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Ordinance Amendment to allow City Council to Refer Back Altered Plans Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first discussion item, a draft ordinance to allow the City Council to refer development plans back to the Planning Commission when they have been substantially altered. The Secretary stated that this ordinance amendment grows out of the experience with the PDQ application. He reviewed the history of the PDQ application and how it was handled by the City Council. He stated that when PDQ came before the City Council, the Planning Commission recommendation was submitted. He explained that the City Council directed a resolution of denial, but gave the applicant an opportunity to work with staff to iron out problems with the plans. He explained that a revised sketch plan was ultimately brought back and that there was a brief staff review, but that it did not meet all the recommended changes. He stated that the City Council was put in a position of having to negotiate various changes to the plans at the public meeting. The Secretary explained that the City Council did ultimately deny the application and directed that any changed plans be submitted to the Planning Commission. He added that the City Council asked for a policy or ordinance to adopt regarding altered plans. 11-21-91 1 The Secretary then reviewed the draft ordinance amendment and made two recommended changes from that draft. The first change would be to make the referral of plans back to the Planning Commission mandatory by changing the word "may" to "shall." The second alteration to the language was to change the last sentence to explain that the time needed for the referral and review of the altered plans shall not count against the time period in which the City Council has to make a determination on an application. The Secretary further discussed the negotiating process with PDQ. Commissioner Bernards stated that if, during the referral of plans back to the Planning Commission, a public hearing is held only on the changes to the plans, he felt that would be acceptable. He stated, however, that to open up the entire issue again was unfair. The Secretary stated that the provision would deal with a situation where an applicant would relent to doing certain changes at the City Council meeting. He stated that instead of negotiating those changes at the City Council meeting, the ordinance would require that the plans be referred back to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Bernards asked who would decide what is a "substantial" change to development plans. The Secretary answered that the City Council would have to make that determination. Commissioner Bernards expressed concern that this provision could be used to procrastinate and keep from making a decision regarding an application rather than confronting an issue head on. Commissioner Sander stated that the staff could recommend to the City Council that the plans be referred if the changes seem substantial to them. The Secretary agreed and stated he felt in the case of PDQ, that the City Council should have referred the plans back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the City Council could not refer plans back at present. The Secretary answered they could, but that this ordinance would mandate that procedure. The Secretary stated that it is the staff's role to haggle with developers and to convey City policies. He stated that the Planning Commission can decide whether the staff is being unreasonable or not. Commissioner Ainas recommended the adoption of the draft ordinance and recommended that the staff circle any changes to the plans so that the Commission could focus on those areas. Commissioner Bernards pointed out that, although the clock would stop for the City Council, the clock would not stop for the developer and that this referral process could be a political ploy to simply hope that an applicant will go away. The Secretary stated that the developer may see the handwriting on the wall and make the changes before going to the City Council. Commissioner Bernards stated that he hoped the City Council would rely on staff input as to what is a substantial change. The Secretary stated that he expected the City Council to seek staff input on what is a substantial change. There followed more discussion as to how the referral process would work. 11-21-91 2 Commissioner Bernards stated that he preferred the word "may" rather than "shall" in allowing the referral, but not mandating it. He stated that he did not want the City Council to use this referral process as a crutch. The Secretary stated that he did not believe the Council would do that. He stated that he felt the Planning Commission would feel it was wasting its time if the City Council negotiated all of these changes and ignored the Planning Commission's input. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO SECTION 35-230 REGARDING REFERRAL OF PLANS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment requiring the referral of substantially altered development plans back to the Planning Commission if altered during City Council review. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed. Commissioner Bernards stated that his opposition was because he wanted to give the City Council the option to make a decision rather than have to refer the plans back. He stated that this could be used to procrastinate on a decision. There followed a brief discussion regarding time limits in the ordinance in certain provisions. b) Ordinance Amendment Regarding Wall Signs and C) Ordinance Amendment to Allow Tradeoff of Wall and Freestanding Signs The Secretary then briefly reviewed two sign ordinance amendments, one dealing with the maximum area allowable for wall signs (reducing it from 30% to 15%) and another allowing a tradeoff between wall signery and an extra freestanding sign. The Secretary stated that this language would basically accommodate the type of situation presented by the Marquette Bank. The Secretary added that he felt the City needs a PUD type provision for signs to allow the City to make other tradeoffs in an overall sign package for a development. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment regarding wall signs and an ordinance amendment to allow a tradeoff of wall and freestanding signs. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. d) Meeting Time The Secretary then asked the Commission whether there might be any desire to change the meeting time from 7:30 p.m. perhaps to 7:00 11-21-91 3 p.m. Chairperson Malecki stated that she did not want to make the meeting any earlier because of work reasons. Other Commissioners generally agreed that keeping it at 7: 30 p.m. was fine with them. Other Business The Secretary then briefly explained to the Planning Commission that there is a resolution which governs wall signery for the buildings in the industrial park along the south side of 69th Avenue North. He explained that that resolution requires that any wall signery on the north walls of the industrial park buildings abutting 69th Avenue North not be higher than 5 ' and that individual letters be used in those signs. He stated that the purpose of this resolution was basically to prevent any signery from being visible across 69th Avenue North in the residential neighborhood. He explained that there is no access from these properties to 69th Avenue North and that the City's policy is to try to protect the residential area to the north. He explained that the owners of one of the buildings want to have wall identification signs by the doors of the tenant areas that would consist of panels that could slip in and out of a frame. He explained that they would be uniform in appearance although they would not be individual letters. The Secretary explained that there have been complaints that individual letters result in damage to the wall. Chairperson Malecki asked what was the point of requiring individual letters. The Secretary stated that it was to provide for consistency and aesthetics. Chairperson Malecki noted that the signs proposed would at least be consistent. Commissioner Sander asked whether the colors could vary from one letter to another. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. There followed a brief discussion of the merits of the resolution governing the signs. The Secretary asked whether staff should look at that policy. Commissioner Bernards and other Commissioners responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the Superamerica sign on its canopy was in violation. The Secretary stated that there was a plan submitted with the Superamerica plans which showed a backlit canopy. He stated that the Building Official rejected that plan, but that Superamerica has violated that order by the Building Official. He stated that staff have contacted Superamerica and that they have not yet responded. There followed a brief discussion regarding displays at the pump islands. The Secretary explained that those displays are allowed though they should not block a driving lane. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:58 p.m. . Chairperson 11-21-91 4