Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 06-11 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 JUNE 11, 1992 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Barbara Kalligher at 7: 34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Barbara Kalligher, Commissioners Ella Sander, Mark Holmes and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Kalligher noted that Commissioners Bernards and Johnson were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (MAY 28 , 1992 Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the May 28, 1992 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Kalligher, Commissioners Sander, Holmes and Mann. Voting against: none. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR The Secretary then explained that the City Council passed resolutions amending the bylaws of various advisory commissions and that Planning Commission Chairpersons would be elected by the advisory commission members. He stated that the next order of business was to elect a chairperson for the remainder of 1992 . Chairperson Kalligher opened the floor for nominations. Commissioner Wallace Bernards was nominated by Commissioner Mann. The nomination -was seconded by Commissioner Sander. Chairperson Kalligher asked whether there were any other nominations. There being none, she called for a motion to close nominations. CLOSE NOMINATIONS Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to close nominations for Planning Commission Chair. The motion passed unanimously. ELECTION OF WALLACE BERNARDS AS PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR Voting in favor of Wallace Bernards as Planning Commission Chairperson: Commissioners Sander, Kalligher, Holmes and Mann. Voting against: none. Commissioner Bernards was elected Planning Commission Chairperson. ELECT PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON PRO TEM Commissioner Mann nominated Commissioner Holmes for Planning Commission Chairperson Pro tem. Commissioner Holmes declined the 6-11-92 1 nomination. Commissioner Kalligher nominated Commissioner Sander to be Planning Commission Chairperson Pro tem. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mann. Commissioner Kalligher asked whether there were any other nominations. Hearing none, she called for a motion to close nominations. CLOSE NOMINATIONS Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Holmes to close nominations. The motion passed unanimously. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON PRO TEM Voting in favor of Commissioner Sander as Planning Commission Chairperson Pro tem: Commissioners Sander, Kalligher, Holmes and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairperson Pro tem Sander then assumed the Chair for the remainder of the meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Real Estate Sign Ordinance Following the Chairperson Pro tem's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first discussion item, the Real Estate Sign Ordinance regarding commercial and industrial space for lease signs and also multi family space for lease signs. The Secretary stated that Mr. Kent Warden was at the meeting to discuss the matter and offer his recommendations. He stated that staff do not have a specific recommendation to make. He stated that some of the concerns regarding this ordinance related to appearance and the duration the sign was up. The Secretary recommended that a permit process be adopted if a more complex ordinance is put in place. He stated, however, that he preferred that the ordinance be simple, but accomplish the objectives of the City Council. Mr. Kent Warden of the Building Owners and Managers Association of Minneapolis (BOMA) stated that his organization has some of the same objectives regarding the appearance of signs. He stated that it would be preferable certainly if they did not need these signs, but that with the market for commercial space of the past few years they are a necessary marketing element. He stated that if these signs were taken away, it would put Brooklyn Center Real Estate at a disadvantage relative to other properties in the Metro area. He stated that a compromise had been worked out with the City Council last year and that the appearance of the signs had improved. Commissioner Mann asked Mr. Warden whether he had read the current ordinance. Mr. Warden responded in the affirmative, stating that he had worked on its provisions last year. Commissioner Mann asked whether he was comfortable with the ordinance as is. Mr. Warden responded that he would prefer some other requirement than to take the sign down and put the date on every year. He stated that this 6-11-92 2 would be a cumbersome process both for the building owners and 'managers and for the City. Mr. John Kelly of Ryan Properties spoke briefly to the Commission. He stated that the MECC tenant, which is a large tenant in 6160 Summit Drive did not come through signage, but that most tenants are small and do come from signery. He stated that the sign size in the ordinance of 32 sq. ft. is adequate. He stated he has some concern about taking the sign down every year. He stated that in today's market these signs will be up for awhile. Commissioner Kalligher asked whether these signs would be used to get business for other locations. Mr. Kelly admitted that there is some carry over from one location to another, but that the signs are always for that building. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the signs would be taken down when buildings are full. Mr. Kelly responded that the buildings he manages are not full. He stated that he would be willing to take the signs down when the buildings are close to full. He stated that the signs have to look good to do a good job. The Secretary then asked Mr. Kelly a number of questions. The Secretary asked what is the practice of Ryan Properties regarding maintenance of these signs. Mr. Kelly responded that he was in charge of property maintenance and that property maintenance gives a first impression of the property. He stated that signs have to be kept up the same as the landscaping. The Secretary asked if the majority of tenant spaces are small. Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative. The Secretary asked if small tenants come from signs and whether there was any documentation of that. Mr. Kelly stated that they do try to track where their tenants come from. He stated that the last six tenants have come from signs. The Secretary noted that signs draw smaller tenants in office buildings. He asked whether the same applied to retail or industrial tenants as well as office tenants. Mr. Kelly answered that retail tenants tend to come from brokers and that the sign is somewhat less important. For industrial tenants, he stated that the sign is important if the tenants are small. For apartments, Mr. Kelly stated that a lot of tenants don't see the signs unless they are looking for them. He stated that large banners attract a lot of traffic and that smaller signs are not as effective. The Secretary asked Mr. Kelly if he thought a 32 sq. ft. sign is adequate. Mr. Kelly responded that if a 32 sq. ft. sign is on the building, it is not very visible. He added that he did not like to put such signs on the building. As a freestanding sign, however, it is adequate in most cases. The Secretary added that the current ordinance does not permit signs for multi family buildings. He stated that there was a concern about such signs, especially in residential neighborhoods. He stated that he assumed banners are for larger projects. Mr. Kelly stated that they are used primarily to appeal to freeway traffic. He stated that in residential neighborhoods traffic is moving slower and that a smaller sign is 6-11-92 3 easier to read there. The Secretary asked whether moving the sign around helps. Mr. Kelly responded that people don't pay attention to signs unless they are ready to move. The Secretary asked whether using the existing freestanding identification sign would be useful or whether a separate sign is better. Mr. Kelly answered that a monument sign identifying a building is a much quieter message. He stated real estate signs don't have the same kind of impact. He stated that he did not want to give the same sense of permanence to a vacancy as to tenants in the building by putting such a message on the freestanding identification sign. The Secretary asked about these signs being temporary. He noted that one city requires the removal of such real estate signs after a building is 80% occupied. He asked Mr. Kelly whether 80% is a reasonable occupancy for removal. Mr. Kelly answered that a building that is 80% occupied is still not profitable. He stated he couldn't remember when he had a building that was 100% occupied. He stated that 95% occupancy would be a reasonable cutoff to take down a sign. The Secretary stated that the concern of the City with such signs being up at a high rate of occupancy is that they will wind up directing traffic to other buildings and thus, become a billboard. Mr. Kelly stated that a 95% cutoff is a workable number. Chairperson Pro tem Sander asked about the large tenant at 6160 Summit Drive and whether it came from a sign. Mr. Kelly responded in the negative. He stated that he did not know if a large tenant would often come from a sign and he described some of the search process that such tenants go through to choose a location. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the ordinance does not allow banners. The Secretary stated that banners are prohibited signs and that they are only allowed by Administrative Land Use Permits for commercial and industrial properties. Commissioner Holmes asked whether one could get a permit for a banner. The Secretary answered that a residential property could not get an Administrative Land Use Permit. He stated that there is no provision in the ordinance right now for multi family real estate signs at all. He reviewed the ordinance for single family real estate signs and stated that it was necessary to address the need for such signs for multi family properties. Commissioner Holmes stated that apparently these signs are not inspected. He asked whether a new ordinance would require City staff to start inspecting such signs. The Secretary answered that he was not aware of a lot of deteriorated signs. He stated that the ordinance in effect would require that signs be taken down every year. He stated that there is a general provision in the Sign Ordinance that requires any deteriorated signs to be taken down. He stated that one of the staff concerns is that signs not be up when there is no vacancy and that perhaps a cutoff of 95% occupancy would be a workable threshold to require such signs to come down. He stated that an annual permit could be used to monitor such signs and stated that the renewal of such a permit would require owners to verify that there is still space available. The Secretary stated, 6-11-92 4 however, that he would prefer to avoid a permit process and simply go after deteriorated signs and check the occupancy of buildings. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the Planning Commission should be concerned about the administrative costs of a given ordinance. The Secretary stated that whatever the ordinance in place, the staff would have to put that work into its priorities of other things to do. Mr. Clem Springer of Weis Asset Management, then briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that signs are important to realtors as well as tenants. He stated that repainting signs that don't need it is unproductive . He stated that he disagreed with a provision that tied such signs to having a percent of the building vacant. He stated that shopping centers have to be full and that tenants are always moving out. He stated that the real estate market is difficult right now and that more restrictions are not needed. He recommended simply going after deteriorated signs. The Secretary stated that the most restrictive case would be if the current ordinance sunsets without a new ordinance being adopted and the old ordinance is put back into effect. He noted that the old ordinance only allowed wall signs. Mr. Springer stated that a freestanding sign is more attractive as well as more effective. Commissioner Holmes asked whether there had been any complaints regarding space for lease signs. The Secretary answered that he was not aware of any. He stated that this ordinance is basically an aesthetic concern that sets a community standard. He stated that most complaints come from those who use the signs. Chairperson Pro tem Sander stated that it was a very complex matter. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. He stated that zoning and sign ordinances have to do with aesthetic controls and that any sign has to have an impact. He added that there is a concern regarding the effectiveness of such signs and the need to lease up space. He stated that it may be desirable to control the message somewhat and perhaps not allow the agency's name as part of the sign. Mr. John Kelly stated that he believed state regulations require that the broker's name be on the sign. Chairperson Pro tem Sander asked what the time frame was for developing a new ordinance. The Secretary answered that the existing ordinance expires by September 20 and that a new ordinance should be recommended by the Planning Commission by early August. He asked for direction from the Commission. Commissioner Mann suggested that the language refer to maintenance and upkeep rather than to taking the sign down once a year. She asked the Secretary why he opposed a permit provision. The Secretary answered that it was basically a matter of cost. He stated that such a provision would be more cumbersome and that it is easiest to administer and understand if the ordinance is simple. He stated that he did not recommend the previous ordinance which was more complex. He stated that, if the Planning Commission recommends a permit, then such signs could be checked every year. Commissioner Mann stated that 6-11-92 5 she preferred that the date of erection and the name of the signhanger be visible on the sign. The Secretary stated that the signhanger may change. Commissioner Holmes asked if staff would look into adding multi family to the real estate sign provisions. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Holmes stated that he did not think it was necessary to take the sign down, but that he liked a yearly permit. Chairperson Pro tem Sander asked whether all signs were checked yearly. The Secretary answered that normally signs with a permit are permanent signs. He stated that a temporary sign might require a new permit. Commissioner Kalligher asked if a permit was necessary if an occupancy threshold was in the ordinance. The Secretary answered that a permit would not necessarily be required, that the occupancy could be checked on occasionally without a permit. Chairperson Pro tem Sander stated that she was concerned about there being signs with no vacancy. She stated that she would recommend that signs come down when a building is 95% leased. The Secretary asked if the Commission had a preference regarding freestanding or wall signs. Commissioner Mann stated that she would prefer to leave the option of either type of sign. Commissioner Mann also recommended that the word "temporary" be removed from the ordinance language. b. Day Care Centers in Commercial Zones The Secretary then introduced the next discussion item, a draft ordinance relating to day care centers in commercial zones that would do away with the abutment restrictions and the prohibition on day cares in shopping centers. The Secretary added that he had a discussion with Mr. Clem Springer regarding the proposal for a day care center in Humboldt Square Shopping Center. He stated that the proposal is for a New Horizon Day Care Center which is a licensed day care operation. He stated that the draft ordinance does not alter Sections 35-411 and 412 relating to the play areas. He reviewed some of the provisions of those sections. He stated that day care would still be subject to the special use permit process. The Secretary stated that New Horizon would have to come back as a special use permit application if the ordinance were amended. He showed the Planning Commission a drawing of the proposed play area and showed how the play area would meet the ordinance standards. He added that Humboldt Square has a surplus of parking and can afford to lose some spaces for the play area. He noted that there is a 6 ' wide walk and 4 ' high fence along the west side of the play area. He expressed concern regarding a new access onto 69th Avenue North. He stated that he had brought the drawing to the attention of the Director of Public Works who had suggested that it might be possible to work out shared access with the gas station to the west. The Secretary explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires accesses on the same site to be at least 50 ' apart and that the proposed access would be very close to the easterly access of the service station leading to possible conflicts. The Secretary stated that he would like the Planning Commission to make some kind of recommendation on the draft ordinance at this evening' s meeting 6-11-92 6 because there is a time crunch involved in making the decision about a day care center at Humboldt Square. The Secretary again explained that the present ordinance prohibits a day care center in a shopping center or adjacent to a gas station. Commissioner Mann asked whether day care is allowed for employees at a retail center. The Secretary stated that that might be considered an accessory use, but that day care that is open to the public could not be located in a shopping center under current ordinance. Commissioner Mann stated that she felt that was a good policy. She stated that she opposed the proposed amendment. Ms. Cindy Cook, of New Horizon Day Care Centers, then addressed the Commission briefly. She stated that New Horizon was losing its lease for a day care center at a church in the area and they have a number of subsidized clients who need to be within walking distance of their day care center. She stated that New Horizon provides full as well as drop in care. She stated that the centers and the playgrounds are attractive. Regarding the requirement for a wood fence, Ms. Cook stated that that the requirement is not compatible with child care. She stated that children rub their hands along the fence and get slivers. She recommended chain link that is vinyl coated. She stated that it would be more attractive and less maintenance and slivers. Commissioner Holmes asked where their day care center was located now. Mr. Springer stated that it was at the Berean Evangelical Free Church. Commissioner Holmes asked whether New Horizon was connected to the one in Brooklyn Park. Ms. Cook responded in the affirmative, noting that it is at Creekside Shopping Center. Commissioner Kalligher asked whether children are bussed to the day care center. Ms. Cook responded that only within a three mile radius was that service provided. The Secretary asked about the part of the program located at the Lutheran Church of the Master. Ms. Cook responded that that is a separate program for a different clientele. The Secretary asked if it was not possible to locate the day care center at the church. Ms. Cook answered that the church does not meet the requirements for a day care license although it does meet the requirements for a nursery school. The Secretary noted regarding the wood fence provisions that the ordinance allows for a "Council approved substitute" . He stated that their was such a fence at the Learning Tree Day Care Center and he was not aware of any problems with that fence. Ms. Cook stated that the City would not become aware of the problem, but that the parents would be. The Secretary left at 9 : 16 p.m. Commissioner Holmes asked how the day care center is regulated by the state. Ms. Cook responded that the state checks primarily the facilities in the building and the staff qualifications. Commissioner Mann asked whether it would be possible to regulate the density of day care centers to keep three from locating in the same shopping center. The Planner responded that it was very 6-11-92 7 Unlikely that such an eventuality would occur. He stated that a . separation requirement could be added, but that day care centers are not offensive uses like adult book stores. The Secretary returned at 9: 18 p.m. and Commissioner Holmes left at 9: 18 pm. Commissioner Kalligher asked about the operating time. Ms. Cook answered that they were hoping to open by September 1. Commissioner Kalligher asked what hours the center was open. Ms. Cook responded that it would normally be open from 6: 30 a.m. to 6: 00 p.m. She stated there are sometimes extended hours and that they work around the parents' schedules as much as possible. Commissioner Holmes returned at 9:20 p.m. Chairperson Pro tem Sander noted that by adopting the ordinance amendment, day care centers would be allowed in Brookdale as well. She asked whether there was any way to restrict centers from locating in an enclosed mall. Ms. Cook pointed out that day care centers cannot afford the rents that are charged at an enclosed mall. Commissioner Holmes asked about the center at the Westbrook Mall. The Secretary responded that that is a drop in center and that drop in centers were added to the Zoning Ordinance in the late 801s. Mr. Clem Springer stated that day care centers have worked well in neighborhood shopping centers. He stated that they are convenient places for clients to go and take care of more than one thing at a time. He stated that day care centers are compatible with commercial developments with respect to traffic generation. He encouraged the Planning Commission to adopt the changes to the ordinance as proposed. He added that the other concern the Commission may have is regarding the health of Humboldt Square Shopping Center. He stated that New Horizon would be good for Humboldt Square. Mr. Springer added that there is a time crunch in trying to meet requirements to finish the space in time for them to open and stated he would appreciate it if the Planning Commission would expedite its consideration. Commissioner Kalligher asked whether there were other day care centers in shopping centers run by Mr. Springer. Mr. Springer answered that there were none at present, but that he has had day care centers in the past. Commissioner Kalligher asked whether any of these were adjacent to gas stations, especially the play area. Mr. Springer answered that they had not been located right next door to a gas station, but were nearby in a couple of cases. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the state had any controls regarding location of day care centers. The Secretary answered that he was not aware of any, that it is up the local community. The Secretary explained that back in 1985, the requirement was for 6-11-92 8 75 sq. ft. of outside play space per child that was outside at one time. He stated that there are regulations for equipment, but most of the regulations related to staff and qualifications as well as interior improvements. The Secretary stated that he was concerned that the state might approve an isolated play area in a parking lot. He stated that the City regulated play areas in order to protect the children from the dangers of commercial parking lots. Commissioner Mann asked what is the state definition of "group day care". There followed a brief discussion regarding the terms "group day care" and "day care facility" . The Secretary distinguished between group day care and group family day care. Commissioner Mann expressed concern that the City would have two day care centers in the same strip mall. She asked whether a spacing requirement would be appropriate. The Secretary answered that he was not sure on what basis the City would adopt such a requirement. He stated that it is like saying you can't have two barber shops in the same shopping center. He added that it was more of a marketing concern than a land use concern. He noted that if there was a second day care center at Humboldt Square, it would have to meet the same play area requirements. He noted the spacing requirements for group homes and stated that he did not consider group homes to be a residential use, but that the City followed state mandates relating to group homes. He noted that sometime there are churches located right next to each other which are not a problem. Chairperson Pro tem Sander stated that it might be appropriate to have a restriction in the lease, but that this would be a tenant concern, not a City concern. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the ordinance would make day care centers a special use in the C1 zone. The Secretary answered that day care is already a special use in commercial zones. He clarified that under current ordinance, day care centers cannot be considered in shopping centers or adjacent to gas stations. He stated that if the ordinance is changed to do away with these restrictions, then a special use permit application would be in order. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO DAY CARE IN COMMERCIAL ZONES Motion by Commissioner Kalligher seconded by Commissioner Holmes to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment relating to day care centers in commercial zones to do away with the prohibition on locating in a shopping center or adjacent to other certain commercial uses. Voting in favor: Chairperson Pro tem Sander, Commissioners Kalligher and Holmes. Voting against: Commissioner Mann. The motion passed. c. Moratorium on Home Occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard The Secretary apologized to the Commission that he did not have 6-11-92 9 specific ordinance language for them to consider regarding a moratorium on home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard during the study that is being done. He stated that the ordinance will take 45 days to become effective and would only affect special home occupations within the Brooklyn Boulevard Study area. He stated that the ordinance will be in effect until the end of the year. He asked that the Planning Commission recommend the moratorium in concept. Commissioner Mann asked whether there is a time limit on moratoriums. The Secretary answered that they are limited to 18 months and can be renewed for an additional 12 months. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON HOME OCCUPATIONS ON BROOKLYN BOULEVARD Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Kalligher to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment establishing a moratorium on home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard during the time of the Brooklyn Boulevard study. Voting in favor: Chairperson Pro tem Sander, Commissioners Kalligher, Holmes and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:59 p.m. Chairperson 6-11-92 10