Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 05-22 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 MAY 22, 1980 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met, in study session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Manson, Erickson and Simmons. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross and Engineering Assistant Jim Grube. The Secretary noted that he had received calls earlier in the day from Commissioners Theis and Lucht saying that they would be unable to attend the meet- ing. He also stated that Commissioner Malecki had mentioned at a previous meeting that she would be unable to attend the May 22 meeting. APPROVAL .OF MINUTES - May 8 , 1980 Following a correction suggested by the Secretary to page 2 of the . Minutes of the May 8 meeting regarding traffic control at the inter- section of 67th Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway, there was a motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded, by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the May 8, 1980 meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Manson, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 80015 (Darrel Farr Development Corp. ) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for a variance from Section 34- 140:2: 1(3) of the Sign Ordinance. He stated that the application had been tabled at the May 8 meeting because no one representing the applicant was present. He added that the Forsmans of 4703 Lakeview Avenue North had attended the meeting and expressed their opposition to- the signery. The Secretary then reviewed Staff Report No. 80015. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Appli- cation No. 80015 attached) . Following the presentation of the staff report, the Chairman called on the applicant to speak to the application. Mr. Tom Johnson, re- presenting Darrel Farr Development Corporation acknowledged that the arguments made by his company had been presented in the Staff Report. He added that the owner of the project considers the conversion of The Beach to condominiums to be a "new" construction project which, under the Sign Ordinance, is entitled to a larger sign. The Secre- tary commented that the question of whether the conversion to con- dominiums constituted a "new" construction project was addressed during an appeal under Planning Commission Application No. 79066 which was reviewed by the Planning Commission and denied by the City Council on November 19, 1979. He stated that 'the finding made by the Planning Commission and City Council in .denying that appeal was that the conversion to condominiums amounted to the sale of existing living units, not new construction. 5-22-80 -1 Commissioner Simmons asked why new construction projects were allowed larger signs than the -sale of existing living units. The Secretary responded that the larger signery permitted for a new construction project serves to inform the public what is being built on an empty site. He noted that the State Building Code Division did not con- sider the remodeling activities at The Beach project to be major enough to require that the structure be brought up to current codes. Therefore, the project was not viewed as "new construction" . Chair- man Hawes added that another difference between the conversion to condominiums and a new construction project is that the living units for sale at The Beach are already producing revenue and are not sitting empty, whereas in a new construction project that is not the case. He also noted that interest rates were currently dropping and should allow easier sale of the units. Commissioner Erickson asked Mr. Johnson when sale of the units began; how many had been sold; and whether he was using the maximum amount of signery permitted under the ordinance. Mr. Johnson answered that sale of the condominium units had begun in September of 1979 and that while purchase agreements had been entered into for 71 units, there had been some agreements which fell through. He explained that Darrel Farr is paying over 20% interest on construction loans to finance the project and' is, therefore, very urgent that the units be sold as quickly as possible. He stated that the amount of signery - being used to sell the project was the maximum allowed under the ordinance. Chairman Hawes and Commissioner Simmons both noted that the high interest rates plagueing the real estate markets, and not a lack of signery, is probably the main cause for a slowdown in sales.. Mr. Johnson responded that the marketability of the project was bas. primarily on visibility and potential signage. He pointed out that over 50% of the buyers have stated that they came to investigate the project because of the sign. Chairman Hawes asked how signery was used at the Strawberry Commons condominium conversion in Brooklyn Park. Mr. Johnson stated that a billboard was used to advertise that project and that the billboard had been allowed by a variance from the Sign Ordinance of Brooklyn Park. The Secretary then catalogued for the applicant the various signs available under the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance, including: one 36 square foot identification sign; a 10 square foot wall sign on each building; necessary directional signs which the applicant presently has; and one 5 square foot real estate sign. He reiterated his recommendation against granting the variance on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance were not met. In response to a question from Commissioner Simmons, Mr. Johnson stated that because of the large right-of-way area for Highway- 100, the sign advertising the sale of condominiums would have to be 200 feet from the roadway. This is one reason, he explained, why the largest possible sign is being sought. Commissioner Erickson stated that it appears the applicant was not utilizing all of the permitted signery in the most advantageous manner. Commissioner Simmons en- couraged the applicant to compliment his sign advertising with news- paper advertising. Commissioner Erickson asked for clarification of the statement in t 5-22-80 -2- applicant's letter that only three buyers of condominiums at The Beach complex were residents of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Johnson ex- plained that that number did not include previous residents of The Beach. Chairman Hawes stated that the Planning Commission had to be careful in granting variances and adopting ordinance amendments since these decisions could result in problems with other cases. He commented that he had received phone Galls from residents of the area adjacent to The Beach condominium complex, all of which were -opposed to the proposed sign. The addresses of those who phoned Chairman Hawes expressing opposition were 4725 Twin Lake Avenue North, 4703 Lakeview Avenue North, 4040 Lakeside Avenue North, and 4006 Lakeside Avenue North. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Com- missioners Manson, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. • The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO: 80015 (Darrel Farr Development Corp. ) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Erickson to recommend denial of Application No. 80015, a request for a variance from Section 34-140:2 1 (3) , on the grounds that the standards for a variance are not met. Voting in favor: Commissioners Manson, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: Chairman Hawes. Chairman Hawes explained that he felt some relief should be given to the- appli- cant either in the form of a variance or an ordinance amendment to perhaps allow temporary signery for the project. RECESS - The Planning Commission recessed at 8 :20 p.m. and resumed at 8:40 p.m. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM The Planning Assistant answered questions from the Planning Commis- sion regarding the full draft of the Capital Improvements Program. Commissioner Simmons asked for clarification regarding the relation- ship between tax rates and the City's growing tax base and asked for- an assessment of the City' s fiscal condition. The Planning Assistant responded that the City is in relatively good fiscal shape and should have no problem paying the debts projected . in the proposed Capital Improvements Program. The Planning Assistant commented that some of the projections made in the fiscal analysis might be somewhat optimistic. Commissioner Erick- son asked which of these he was referring to. The Planning Assistant answered that while Intergovernmental revenue was projected to keep pace with inflation over the next five years, this might not be the case if other levels of government "pull in their horns" , cutting back on grants and shared revenue programs with local governments. He .also stated that the projection that general operating expenditures would increase only slightly faster than inflation was based .on the assumption that real wages of American workers would decline slightly over the next five years as they have for the past two years. He stated that the projections for the City's tax base are based on assumptions more conservative than the construction plans of the Industrial -Park and the Assessor's expectations regarding the price 5-22-80 -3- behavior of real property in the City. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the growth in the City's tax base would result in higher taxes for local taxpayers. The Plan- ning Assistant explained that the level of taxes collectible by the City is controlled by the levy limit imposed by the State. The Secretary added that in the year in which the City fell under the State imposed levy limit, tax collections were abnormally low and that it took five years to convince the State Department of Revenue that Brooklyn Center's levy limit needed an upward adjustment. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE 1981-1985 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Erickson to recommend approval of the 1981-1985 Capital Improvements Program as part of the new Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Manson, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Hawes inquired whether the City had received any comments regarding its Comprehensive Plan from surrounding communities and what plans it had received from those communities. *The Secretary answered that the staff had received one minor comment from the City of Brooklyn Park regarding the Brooklyn Center Plan. He stated that the Planning bepartment had received plans from Minneapolis, Fridley, and portions of the Brooklyn Park Plan. In addition, he said, the four school districts serving 'Brooklyn Center had submitted their Capital Improvements Programs to the Metropolitan Council which has reviewed all of them. He stated that the City had no objections to any of the Capital Improvements Programs of the school districts. He did note, however, that the Metropolitan Council had recommended that the Anoka-Hennepin School District and the Brooklyn Center School District work out an arrangement to accommodate the desires of resi- dents within the Anoka District in the Northeast Neighborhood of Brooklyn Center, Chairman Hawes and the Secretary discussed the timing of. the Com- prehensive Plan adoption and implementation. The Secretary explained that the Metropolitan Council would have 120 days to review the Com- prehensive Plan and that after that review period, the City would have to adopt the necessary changes to the ordinance. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary referred the Commission's attention to the draft ordi- nance amendment regarding joint parking and off-site accessory park- ing. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that the ordinance does not allow off-site accessory parking to be located in a zone which is more restrictive than the zoning district in which the principal is located. She noted that Harron Methodist Church is located in an R2 zone, while its parking area is in the Rl zone. The Planning Assis- tant pointed out that the ordinance amendment stipulates that "for the purposes of this section of the ordinance, institutional uses in residential zones shall have the same status as C-1 zoned pro- perty" . Under this rule, he said, the parking lot across the street from the Harron Methodist Church and church itself could be treated as C-1 zoned property for the purposes of establishing an off-site . accessory parking arrangement. He added that the ordinance amendment. 5-22-80 -4- would allow an office building to make use of a church parking lot, but that a retail use could not make use of a church parking lot. Commissioner Simmons pointed out, however, that the church and the parking lot are, in fact, located in different zones. The Secretary acknowledged that this could be a problem and suggested further review. Commissioner Erickson asked why the -distance requirement for off-site accessory parking was changed in the draft amendment from 300 feet to 800 feet. The Secretary' replied that this and other changes would make the joint parking and off-site accessory parking provi- sions of the Zoning Ordinance consistent with one another. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Simmons, seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Manson, Erickson, and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Chairman .5-22-80 -5-