Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 11-19 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 19 , 1981 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 C airman William Hawes, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Richard Theis, George Lucht, Mary Simmons and Lowell Ainas. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. The Secretary mentioned that Commissioner Manson had called a week prior to the meeting to say she would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 5 , 1981 Chairman Hawes briefly asked for clarification of the off-site accessory parking ordinance amendment on page 5 and 6 of the November 5 minutes. Following an explanation by the Secretary regarding parking allowed between zones, there was a motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve the minutes of the November 5, 1981 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 81067 (David Brandvold) Following the Chairman's explanation, Chairman Hawes explained that certain revisions had to be made to the preliminary plat proposed by Mr. Brandvold involving land at the end of Colfax Avenue North, north of 57th Avenue North. He stated that the application would not be considered until the December 10 meeting, at the earliest. MOTION TO TABLE APPLICATION NO. 81067 (David Brandvold) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table Application No. 81067 until the December 10, 1981 meeting, or until the applicant has prepared a satisfactory plat of the land in question. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81070 (Summit Mortgage Corporation) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan approval by Summit Mortgage Corporation to add a year-round porch to the west side of the main house on the Earle Brown Farm at 6150 Summit Drive. He reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81070 attached) . - Commissioner Theis asked whether the garage from the north portion of the Farm site would be linked to the main house. The Secretary answered that the relocated garage would. not share a common wall with the existing main house and garage, but would have an enclosed walkway linking the two. 11-19-81 -1- Commissioner Simmons expressed frustration over continually deal- ing with the Earle Brown Farm on the basis of historic preserva- tion `when, in her opinion, the proposed reuse of the property does not preserve anything other than building exteriors. Commissioner Lucht stated that he felt the finding has been made that the pro- perty is a historic site and that the City may as well try to pro- mote maintenance and preservation of the structures as much as possible. Commissioner Lucht asked whether it would not be neces- sary to change the zoning status of the property to allow an industrial use. The Secretary answered that the Planning Commis- .sion and City Council have approved an industrial use in the horse barn and hippodrome which is also part of the Minnesota Historic Site. He stated that expansion of a residential use on the Farm has not been proposed in the past, but that such an expansion could be comprehended under the approval of Application No. 81041, which gave the City Council complete latitude in determining what uses should be permitted on the Earle Brown Farm to further the ob- jective of historic preservation. Commissioner Simmons questioned the whole motivation and approach behind setting up the property as a historic district. She stated that she did not think the Minnesota Historical Society would have approved the proposed addition to the main house if the whole development proposal had been put forth at once. She criticized the gradual approach which evolves. away from historic preservation The Planning Assistant stated that in his discussion with Mr. Gim mestad of the Minnesota Historical Society, it was explained that the MHS treats different projects differently depending on whether the property is publicly or privately owned. He stated that the State would recommend a more authentic preservation of the build ings and the site if the _property were publicly owned. In the case of private ownership, he explained, the MHS has less leverage and merely tries to influence the reuse of the property in ways most capable with long run historic preservation. The Secretary added that the City Council does not have to approve the proposed porch addition, in that it represents technically an expansion of a nonconforming use. He pointed out, however, that if the Planning Commission and City Council feel that the addition is worthwhile in contributing to the preservation of the historic site, the` pro- ject can be approved. Commissioner Ainas noted that when historic buildings revert to public ownership, there is often considerable expense in restoring the property to its original historic character. He stated that the addition of the porch is quite reversible and can, therefore, be accepted without a great deal of concern as to its future consequences . Commissioner Simmons countered that while the porch could be removed from the main house, the site in general could not be reconstructed to conform to its previous layout. Mr. Janis Blumentals, representing Summit Mortgage Corporation, explained that there are two ways to preserve the historic pro- perties. one way, he explained, is to leave the property as is and make use of it only in line with its original use. The second approach, he went on, maintains the character of the buildings as much as possible, but adapts them internally for use today. He cited Butler Square as an example of the latter type of historic preservation. Commissioner Lucht added that it would have been to the advantage of the owner to develop the property for an indus- trial use as the Zoning ordinance allows by tearing down all of the historic structures on the property. He stated that some Planning 11-19-81 -2-: Commissioners previously had little _concern over whether this, in fact, happened. But, now the Planning Commission and City Council have expressed a desire to preserve the property and its historic character as much as possible. Chairman Hawes asked why the porch addition had not been shown on the previous plan for relocating structures. He suspected, he said, that this addition was known about previously and could have been planned for and considered at the time of the approval of Application No. 81041. Commissioner Theis pointed out that the thinking of the Planning Commission and City Council has evolved as much as that of the applicant. He noted that, at first people did not think the area could be preserved at all. Then, the City agreed to the idea of moving the buildings into a compact area to make their preservation as economically viable as possible. Now, the City must recognize that a residential use of the main house and attached structures is probably the most feasible use of the property and will further its preservation. _Commissioner Simmons stated that she was not opposed so much to the proposed porch addition, but to the whole gradual approach, which actually erodes historic preservation. She wondered what the Brooklyn Center Historical Society thought of the proposed addition and what they really preferred for the Farm in the first place. Chairman Hawes stated that he felt there was a master plan for the area which the Planning Commission saw only in bits and pieces. Mr. Blumentals stated that there is no such master plan of the area beyond what the Planning Commission has been made aware of. Chairman Hawes acknowledged that he could see some benefit to the proposed porch, but wondered at what point the incremental changes in the Farm site and buildings would become irreversible. He stated that he would prefer that the City would take over the pro- perty and fully preserve it. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81070 (Summit Mortgage Corporation) Citing the fact that the proposed porch addition is reversible and that it furthers the objective of preserving the historic structures, Commissioner Theis moved, with Commissioner Simmons seconding, that Application No. 81070 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review 'and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The plat pertaining to the property (Application No. 81035) shall be given final approval by the City Council and filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Plans and execution of the proposed construction shall be in accordance with recommendations of the Minnesota Historical Society. 4. The provisions of Section 35-110 are waived in the action of this approval on the grounds that the proposal fulfills the objective of historic preser- vation (see Condition No. 5 of Application No. 81041) . 11-19-81 -3- Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. 'doting against: Chairman Hawes. Chairman Hawes stated he opposed the addition because he feels there is further development tied to the Farm buildings which is not evident in the proposed plan and that this future development will not be reversible. Commissioner Simmons stated that she favored the application because it is an ,tddi.tion which is easily reversible Commissioner Theis stated that his motion for the approval was because he feels that the rch will be a vehicle to help preserve the field house which is (located next to the main house. APPLICATION <NO. 81071 (Dale Tile Company) The secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan approval for major alterations to the in- terior and exterior of the buildings at 4815 France Avenue North, the Dale Tile office and warehouse. He added that the application Is also for a Special Use Permit to allow retail sale of products manufactured, processed or wholesaled on the use site. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81071 attached) . The Secretary VR=xt directed the Commission's attention to a memo from the Assistant City Engineer regarding the proposed site plan. He noted that the site plan does not show an existing permanent easement for street purposes along the southern boundary line of the site in question and that future replatting of the property would have to relocate the westerly property line someplace west of the parking lot. Chairman Hawes noted that the roadway for Lakebreeze Avenue had been shifted to the north and asked whether the additional easement areas were to allow for further widening in the future. The Assistant City Engineer explained that the easements give additional right-of-way to the State for access control in the area close to the intersection of France Avenue and Highway 100. He explained that it would also allow for future potential widening, although none is planned at this time. He stated that the easement area should be shown on the site plan so that people referring to the plan can be aware of the boundaries of public right-of-way. There followed a lengthy discussion regarding the exterior treatment of various building walls at the Dale Tile complex. The improvements to the building would leave the north and west walls as painted con- crete block with a color scheme consistent with that of the rest of the building. Commissioner Simmons asked whether it would be appro- priate to make an exception to the policy of consistent exterior treatment for those walls which are not highly visible. The Secre- tary suggested that a better rationale for approving the proposed building plans would be that the proposed exterior is uniform enough to meet the general outlines of the policy. He pointed out that the Joslyn Manufacturing property to the north and west would probably be redeveloped at some point in the future so that there would be other properties with visibility to the rear of the building. Com- missioner Lucht commented that to have a completely consistent ex- terior treatment, the warehouse building could have simply a brown- stripe all the way around,, rather than having an attractive metal fascia on the most visible walls. Mr. Alan Dale addressed the Commission and explained that adding the fascia treatment to the west side of the warehouse building would cost $23,000.00 and would kill the entire project if required. 11-19-81 -4- Mr. Dale showed samples of the metal fascia material and the ex- posed aggregate material to be used in the new wall treatment. The Secretary stated that the building exterior as proposed would be tied together adequately because of a consistent color scheme around=the entire building. He stated that the proposed treatments would be much better than the hodge-podge of building treatments, which presently exists at the complex. He also stated that the policy of consistent exterior treatment, if taken to an extreme, can lead to less decorative treatments because developers are re- luctant to carry decorative treatments around an entire structure. He stated that the purpose of the policy was to avoid false facades and concrete block buildings, but that the policy can have the effect of reducing decorative treatments. He noted that it would be possible for the applicant to meet the intent of the policy with a less elaborate treatment such as 'a consistent color treat- ment with no fascia on the buildings . He stated that the proposed wall treatments would certainly move the building in the direction of consistent exterior treatment. He concluded by stating that. the fact the proposal is a remodeling, rather than new construction, may have some bearing on the Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Ainas stated that it was difficult for him to reconcile the "imaginative architectural concepts" called for in the Zoning Ordinance with consistent exterior treatment. Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt the policy of requiring total consistency around buildings is too strict. PUBLIC HEARING C airman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. He asked if there were any persons present who wished to speak to the application. There being none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Theis stated that he was concerned with the lack of treatment on the west wall of the building, but that he would vote to approve the application because it is such an obvious improvement over the existing situation. r ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81071 (Dale Tile Com an z) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 81071, subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The eastern portion of the warehouse building and the existing office building shall be equipped within an automatic fire extinguishing system in accordance with NFPA Standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 11-19-81 -5- 3. The plan shall be modified prior to consideration by the City Council to show a) The permanent right-of-way easements along Lakebreeze Avenue b) Elevations for the west and north walls of the building. 4. The applicant shall replat the subject property along with the parcel to the west to move the common property line eastward to approximately 10 ' from the edge of the parking lot. This re- platting shall be accomplished prior to release of the performance guarantee. 5 . A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be deter- mined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure com- pletion of approved site improvements 6. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 7. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations- and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 8. All outside trash enclosures and/or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht and Simmons. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commis- .signer Ainas. Commissioner Ainas explained that he was not voting on the application because of a professional conflict. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9 :26 p.m. and resumed at 9 :49 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 81072 (Russell Viska) Following the recess, the Secretary introduced the next item of busi- ness, a request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance by Russell Viska to erect a 34' high x 152 sq. ft. freestanding sign at the Smoke Pit Restaurant at 5001 Drew Avenue North. The Secretary re- viewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81072 attached) . The Secretary concluded his recommendation by stating that Mr. Viska should erect signs that comply with the Sign Ordinance and that it is staff's judgment that this would provide him with adequate visibility for necessary visual communication. The Secretary then read a letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Roger Pyle of 5013 Drew Avenue North, the house just north of the restaurant The letter generally opposed the proposed sign variance on the grounds that it would be detei- mental to the neighborhood. Chairman Hawes noted that- there are powerlines in the area where , the sign presently exists and that a higher sign might come in con- flict with these wires. He asked whether there was any restriction on keeping signs away from powerlines. The Secretary stated he was not sure whether there was a regulation from some other source, but that the Sign Ordinance does not address that question. 11-19-81 "�" Chairman Hawes then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Viska explained to the Planning Commission that one of his original reasons for pursuing more signery was that he felt other businesses in the area have been treated unfairly relative to service stations, in light of recent ordinance amendments which allows greater promo- tional signery for service stations. He stated that he realized he could have more signery than he presently has and still be in com- pliance with the Sign Ordinance. However, he added, covering 30% of the building with signs would be unattractive. He stated that many people are trying to find his restaurant, but are unable to because of its unique location. He pointed out that he has adver- tised in newspapers, magazines, and used coupons. He stated that he felt that a sign close to the highway is needed because the rail- road bridge and the exit at 50th Avenue provide some distractions to passing motorists. He said that the sign would not affect traffic on Highway 100 coming from the south because of the railroad bridge and because by the time the sign is visible, those cars would be unable to turn off at France. He stated that the neighbors would probably prefer that no sign exist on the premise. He stated that he felt the present business is attractive and that the City should do whatever is reasonable to try to keep it going, rather than allow it to fail and have another vacant building. He added that he would be willing to give up the sign on the building as a trade-off if the variance were allowed. Commissioner Ainas asked what the elevation of the Smoke Pit rest- aurant is relative to the Denny's restaurant and the height of their respective signs. Mr. Viska pointed out that the Denny's restaurant is situated above Highway 100 and that the sign is probably at the maximum height allowed by ordinance. He stated that his restaurant is roughly at the level of the highway and that his sign is presently only 18 feet high. The Secretary briefly reviewed the Sign Ordinance provisions governing height and size of freestanding signs. The Planning Assistant recalled that the sign at Denny's is roughly 165 sq. ft. in area and, therefore, probably 25 feet high. In answer to a question from Chairman Hawes regarding promotions, the Secretary stated that the ordinance is fairly liberal in allowing- almost any kind of signery besides flashing signs for two ten day periods each year. He noted that the property in question has used its two promotional permits and will not be eligible for another until January 1, 1982. Commissioner Simmons asked Mr. Viska if he felt a higher sign would solve all his business problems . Mr. Viska answered that it would help solve the problem of letting people know where the restaurant is. Commissioner Simmons asked whether he wished to seek the sign variance primarily on behalf of other businesses that are not service stations. Mr. Viska answered that the request for a variance arises primarily out of his research into the problem people are having finding his restaurant. In response to a question from Chairman Hawes regarding the hours of operation, Mr. Viska briefly reviewed his hours and stated that he has no morning hours or late night hours. Chairman Hawes asked about additional lighting. Mr. Viska stated that there are lights at the northeast and southeast corner of the building and in the parking lot. Commissioner Lucht stated that he aid not think a larger or taller sign would do what Mr. Viska intended. He suggested that Mr. Viska put maps in his advertising. Mr. Viska responded that he was already 11-19-81 -7- doing that. - } The Secretary noted that there is only one traffic movement off Highway 100 which the sign would affect. He stated that the Sign ordinance cannot guarantee highway visibility to every business. He noted that when the restaurant was proposed at the location of 50th and Drew, staff had questions as to whether the restaurant would work. At that time, he recalled, the developer expected that people working in the nearby industrial area or residing in the neighborhood would be steady customers of the restaurant. Commissioner Lucht pointed out that evergreen trees grow very fast and that the variance would probably solve the problem (if at all) only for a short time, whereas the action of granting a variance by the Planning Commission would have long run consequences in other cases. The Secretary mentioned Federal Lumber as an example of a business with similar problems. Chairman Hawes stated that he has driven by the restaurant a number of times and wondered if it was even open because it looked dark inside. He also related how he was unaware of the 60 ' high Holiday Inn sign until he read about it in the staff report, even though it has been in existence for a number of years and he has driven by it many times. Mr. Viska answered that his need for a high sign is to try to attract the initial business to the establishment and that after this business was going, it would be easier to attract more customers without having to rely on excessive signery. He explained that the rest- aurant does not have the kind of local appeal originally anticipated by the developer. He stated that people drive a considerable dis- tance to get good barbeque (he mentioned the example of the Market Restaurant in Minneapolis, which draws customers from a considerable dists^ce) . He stated that he has had many customers who have gone considerable distance to find him, but were unable to locate the . restaurant once they reached the area where they thought it was. Mr. Viska stated that he felt the situation is unique, in that his restaurant is blocked from full visibility by the evergreen trees and that the restaurant is located in an industrial as opposed to a commercial mall area. Chairman Hawes. expressed sympathy with the problems the restaurant was experiencing, but added that variances create problems for the City with other businesses down the road. He added that he did not feel signs would do what Mr. Viska hoped they would. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Jerry Johnston of 5012 Ewing' Avenue`North stated that'°he was opposed to the variance application because he felt a high sign would be an eyesore in the area and detract from the neighborhood. He stated that he has light shining in his back yard presently and does not want to see any more. Commissioner Lucht stated that he did not feel the request met the Standards for a Variance. He stated that while the restaurant is experiencing a hardship, he did not think that it resulted from a lack of sgnery. He stated that the situation is not very unique relative to other businesses in the same general area. Finally, he noted that based on comments from two neighbors, the variance might be detrimental to surrounding property. 11-19-81 -8 CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There being no other people present to comment on the application, there was a motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81072 (Russell Viska) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 81072, a request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to erect a 34 ' high, 152 sq. ft. sign at 5001 Drew Avenue North,, on the grounds that the Standards for a Sign Ordinance Variance are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming Planning Commission business- and .the possibility of cancelling the December 17,1981 meeting, there was a motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10 :57 p.m. Chairman 11-19-81 -9-