Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 01-13 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 JANUARY 13, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER: 1982 Planning Commission The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7 :32 p.m. ROLL CALL: 1982 planning Commission C airman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson,. Lowell Ainas , Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 9 , 1982 y Commissioner Sandstrom to Motion y Commissioner Ma ec i seconded b approve the minutes of the December 9 , 1982 Planning Commission meeting Commissioners Malecki., as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed. ADJOURN 1982 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to adjourn the 1982 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary then administered the oath of office of Planning Com- missioner to Commissioners Simmons, Lucht and Ainas . The Commissioners then took their seats to serve on the Commission for an additional two year term. CALL TO ORDER: 1983 Planning Commission As past Chairman, Commissioner George Lucht then called to order the 1983 Planning Commission at 7: 35 p.m. He announced that the first item of business would be to elect a Planning Commission Chairman. ELECT 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN T ere was a motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to nominate George Lucht to serve as Chairman of the 1983 Planning Commission. Commissioner Lucht asked whether there were any other nominations. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to close the nominations. Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Simmons to close nominations. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lucht was elected as 1983 Planning Commission Chairman on a unanimous vote. ELECTION OF 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PRO TEM T ere was a motion y Commissioner"I"inas seconded y Commissioner Simmons to nominate Nancy Manson to serve as Chairman Pro tern of the 1983 Planning Commission. Chairman Lucht asked whether there were any other nominations. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close nominations. 1-13-83 -1' Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close nominations. The motion passed unanimously. Nancy Manson was elected as 1983 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem on a unanimous vote. APPLICATION NO. 82042 (Universal Sign Company) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for a variance from Section 34-140, 3a 2 of the Sign Ordinance to erect a 50 ft. high freestanding identi- fication sign at the Budgetel Inn, 6415 James Circle. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report for the evening's meeting and the original staff report prepared for the November 4th Planning Commission meeting at which time the application had been tabled (see Planning Commission Information Sheets attached) . Commissioner Simmons asked whether the increase in height is justified in order to get the price sign up above the Shingle Creek Parkway bridge. The Secretary answered in the negative. He stated any variance to allow a taller sign would be based on past precedent not on the need to get the price message visible. The Secretary stated that he felt visibility could be accomplished within the ordinance. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the identification sign itself could be seen. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Versteeg noted that by putting the price sign up under the identifi- cation sign a larger identification sign would be allowed. The Secretary stated that the identification sign would still have to meet the restrictions of the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Simmons concluded that Budgetel wants a traveler to see the price sign along with the Budgetel sign. Commissioner Versteeg asked who did the engineering studies for Holidayl, Inn in 1972. The Secretary answered that Holiday Inn did its own visual engineering study to make its case for the sign variance granted in 1972. Commissioner Versteeg suggested that Budgetel do the same types of studies. The Secretary stated that it might be possible to develop the same kind of information by using sight lines. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the hotel's occupancy was higher now since Interstate 94 opened down to Minneapolis than it was prior to that time, when the application was first submitted. The Secretary answered that he was not sure what the occupancy of the Budgetel or , the other hotels in Brooklyn Center were at the time. Commissioner Simmons noted that Holiday Inn did not advertise price on its free- standing sign, only identification. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, noting that Holiday Inn does not usually advertise price. He stated that the shape of the Holiday Inn sign in itself is usually enough to tell travelers that it is a. Holiday Inn. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Dick Rogers, an attorney for Budgetel,, introduced Rick Palmateer of Universal Sign Company to review the visibility problems of the current Budgetel identification sign. Mr. Palmateer explained initially that the original drawing for the freestanding sign did not take into account the way in which Brooklyn Center measures sign area and that there was no intent to seek a variance from the area restriction of 250 sq. ft. Mr. Palmateer then showed some slides of the Budgetel sign as seen from the Interstate 94 freeway going both westbound ,and eastbound. He pointed out that 1-13-83 2_ there was no problem seeing the sign while traveling west on the free- way toward Shingle Creek Parkway. He pointed out, however, that the visibility of the sign for those traveling eastbound on the Interstate was poor because of the Shingle Creek Parkway bridge and a pedestrian bridge obstructing the view of the sign. There followed a lengthy discussion regarding when the sign was visible and when it was not at certain points while traveling along the freeway. Chairman Lucht pointed out that if the sign were raised above its existing height it would soon be blocked out by the pedestrian bridge and so little gain in visibility would be made. Mr. Rogers stated that any sign would not be visible at some point, but that the proposed sign will be more visible than the existing sign. , Commissioner Sandstrom pointed out that the sign could be larger if a price sign were not included. Commissioner Simmons objected to the price sign saying it looked like a gasoline station advertisement. Mr. Rogers stated that Budgetel does not want the highest and biggest sign of any along the freeway, just an adequate sign. He stated that Budgetel felt that a 50 ft. high sign is adequate and did not wish to ask for a higher sign. Mr. Richard Slaton of Budgetel also addressed the Commission. He stated that the price signs that gasoline stations use must be effective since everyone uses them. He stated that it was not necessary to have the price sign but that it is part of the message that Budgetel wishes to convey to travelers. He stated that Budgetel had planned on building a steak restaurant on a portion of its property if business at the motel were sufficient. However, he noted, occupancy has been running at less than 50% since the opening of the motel. He pointed out that this was the worst occupancy of any of their hotels in the upper midwest. Commissioner Simmons asked Mr. Slaton whether he studied the site in question before deciding to buy it and build on it. Mr. Slaton stated that Budgetel had examined the site carefully before buying it, that the company was aware that there would be some difficulties experienced, but that it felt the site was a good one. Mr. Slaton stated that Budgetel could do without the price sign to get a larger sign. There was a discussion regarding the possibility of putting up_ a larger sign without a price sign. Mr. Rogers explained that Budgetel is under taking a nationwide program of changing its signery and that the size proposed is the one which the company has found is generally acceptable in most any location. Commissioner Versteeg asked how sure Budgetel was that a sign 40 to 50 ft. high would be visible. Mr. Slaton answered that he felt a 40 to 50 ft. sign would have to help visibility. Commissioner ' Versteeg stated that the bridges would block out a higher sign as well as the existing sign. Mr. Slaton stated that that problem is intermittent as a traveler moves down the freeway. The Secretary stated that staff have no problem with the design of the sign, but that raising it 18 ft. above the ordinance maximum would not help. PUBLIC HEARING EAp lication No. 82042) li- C airman Luc ht en opened the meeting for a public hearing on App cation No. 82042. He asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Mr. Terry Rice, the manager at the Thrifty Scot Motel adjacent to the Budgetel Inn, stated that people going east- bound on the freeway do have a problem with visibility trying to see the motels . He stated that Thrifty Scot would also be interested- 1-13-83 -3- in a variance if one is granted to Budgetel. Chairman Lucht then asked whether anyone else wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether a monumental precedent would be set if the variance were granted. The Secretary stated that it should be limited to hotels and motels and justified along the lines of the variance granted to Holiday Inn in 1972. Chairman Lucht stated that he would prefer to change the ordinance, if necessary, to address the situation of hotels and motels adjacent to the freeway. He stated that he didn't know whether a higher sign would do any good, whether 50 ft. would be enough or whether 60 ft. would be required. He stated that he agreed with Commissioner Versteeg' that more study is needed. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that there is a billboard in Brooklyn Park which alerts people to the existence of Budgetel Inn. She stated that people would be looking for a sign for the Budgetel Inn and that the main problem is not with the sign, but with the mechanics of getting off the freeway and the layout of bridges across the freeway. She observed that there was no to change these factors and that the problem would not be solved by a higher sign. She also pointed to the fact that Thrifty Scot would ask for the same type of variance as a reason not to grant a variance to Budgetel. Commissioner Manson stated that she did not know whether an increase in height would correct the visibility problem. She stated that the freeway construction and the bad economy that have occurred in the past two years have been hard on Budgetel and Thrifty Scot and that the effects of these factors cannot feasibly be separated from that of sign visibility. Commissioner Malecki stated that the readability of the sign is a key. She pointed out that a higher sign would not necessarily be more legible and stressed the fact `a larger sign at any height would be preferable to what exists now. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not feel the applicant had shown that the standards have been met. He acknowledged that the situation may possibly be unique and he agreed that there was no detriment to surrounding properties. But, he added that he did not know that the hardship that the business has experienced for the last few years has been a result of the sign or, more likely, other factors. Com- missioner Sandstrom stated that he sensed the Planning Commission needed more facts to make a definite judgment. He stated that he didn't think the Planning Commission could decide without a study similar to that done for the Holiday Inn variance application. Mr. Rogers stated that it would be possible to run a flag test to verify at what height adequate visibility would be obtained. He stated people who know these tests have told them that a 50 ft high sign would be adequate. Chairman Lucht stated that the Planning Commission simply did not have the information before them .to verify this fact. Mr. Rogers asked the Planning Commission to table the application and allow Budgetel to perform the tests and submit the evidence necessary to the Planning Commission. 1-13-83 -4- Commissioner Simmons stated that variances from other motels would be submitted and that the ordinance would be undermined. She stated that Budgetel was asking the City to break its ordinance on the assumption that business might improve if a higher sign were granted. Mr. Slaton asked the Planning Commission to look at Budgetel as an. individual case and not to lump its request in with all other motels. He stated that the Planning Commission must make the judgment as to whether, in this individual case, the standards for a variance are met. He. also pointed out the Budgetel did really believe that business would improve with a higher sign and was willing to spend $40,000.00 on the sign to obtain that business. The Secretary stated that the applicant would have to show that the hardship is related to the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, not a result of economic or other conditions. Commissioner Ainas acknowledged that it would be difficult to document an improvement in the business and what that improvement was related to, give the number of variables that affect the business . He asked the applicant whether he would consider a 10 x 24 ft. sign as a means of improving the read- ability of the sign. Mr. Slaton answered that Budgetel has a standard 8 x 20 ft. sign which it has found to be compatible with most sign ordinances across the country and would prefer to stick with the size it normally uses rather than build a special sign. The Planning Assistant suggested that, while the applicant is doing a flag test, it also look at that the possibility of putting a larger sign on the mansard of the motel which faces west. He pointed out that the motel is visible to the left (north) of the bridge more so than a freestanding sign which would have to be read behind the bridges. MOTION TO TABLE APPLICATION NO. 82042 (Universal Sign Company). Following a brief discussion of the options, there was a motion by Com- missioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to table .Applica- tion No. 82042, at the request of the applicant, and request that the applicant bring to the Planning Commission better documentation that a higher sign would improve sign visibility from the Interstate, west of Shingle Creek Parkway. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commis- sioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS TTe Planning Commission recessed at 9 :26 p.m. and resumed at 9 :43 p.m. TABLE APPLICATION NO. 83002 The Secretary explained to the Planning Commission that a representative of Marcon, Inc. was unable to attend the evening's meeting and that Mr. Gary Uhde had asked that the application be tabled until January 27, 1983. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 83002 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 83002 at the applicant's request until January 27th. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. - The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 83001 (Howe, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, an appeal from a determination by staff that a site plan for parking on a vacant area of Highway 152 right-of-way cannot be accepted because it would 1-13-83 -5 constitute an expansion of the Howe site and would violate Section 35-111 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83001 attached) In answer to questions from Commissioner Simmons, the Secretary ex- plained that the parcel is owned by Mn/DOT and that they cannot really sell the property to another user because it is not large enough to be viable as a separate industrial site. Chairman Lucht asked whether the property would still be right=of-way if the appli- cant, did not acquire it. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. There followed a brief discussion as to the question of expanding a nonconforming use. Commissioner Simmons noted that the use is considered a single use and cannot be split into various components. She stated-that an expansion of the site would be an expansion of a nonconforming use. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether adding more parking would add to the nonconformity. Chairman Lucht explained that expanding the land area is forbidden by the ordinance whether it is for parking or .for some other use related to the principal use. Commissioner Simmons noted that the parking would not be increased so much as shifted from one area of the site to another. Commissioner Versteeg noted that if there were more parking_ spaces, it would result in more employees and that that would be expansion of the use. The Secretary then briefly explained the problem of defining expansion of the use. He stated that it was impossible to limit the operation to a set number of employees or a -set profit figure or level of output. He stated that the Council had decided not to split up the various uses on the site, but to look at it as a complex in deciding to allow Howe Fertilizer to rebuild after the fire in 1979. He explained that the uses going on at the site cannot be split up from one another and that expansion of the site is basically considered expansion of a nonconforming use. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Tom Howe, representing Howe, Inc. , reviewed the background of the issue. He stated that there are problems at the site caused by the access off 49th Avenue North that result in drainage problems and icing up of the scale adjacent to the office on 'the east side of the site. Mr. Howe reviewed photos of the Howe business prior to the construction ` of the bridge over the Soo Line in 1972. He showed that the Howe operation was using certain land areas that it owned or leased from the Soo Line and an adjacent business prior to the construction of the bridge. He stated that if these areas were all added up, they would equal or exceed the area of the excess right-of-way which Howe, Inc. wishes to acquire at this time. Mr. Howe explained that a jury has awarded damages to Howe, Inc. because of the damages to the Howe operation resulting from the Highway Department's actions. He explained that these damages are over and above the acquisition of land made in 1972. Mr. Howe stated City staff agree that there are positive benefits that would result from the proposed parking expansion, but have a legal problem with the expansion of a nonconforming use."' Mr. Howe explained the manufacturing of fertilizer is not the primary use -,on the site, but that it represents only about 8% of all business receipts from the operation. He stated that he was asking that Howe, Inc. might be able to do what the ordinance literally says not to expand the nonconforming use beyond what existed_at` the time it became noncon 1-13-83 -6- forming. He stated that the land area used by Howe in 1957 was as large as the area that would be occupied by Howe if it acquired the excess right-of-way adjacent to 49th and Brooklyn Boulevard. In response to a question from Commissioner Versteeg, Mr. Howe launched into a discussion of the site plan which he wished to submit for approval. He discussed the possible need for a variance from the greenstrip requirement adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Howe also reviewed the proposal made by Howe, Inc. in 1977 to expand into the two adjacent residential lots to the west of the site and pointed out that the expansion at that time would have alleviated a number of the nonconforming aspects of the Howe site by providing most of the buffer area required by the Zoning Ordinance He concluded by saying that parking is a permitted use and not a nonconforming use and asked that the Planning Commission favorably consider his appeal. Commissioner Simmons stated that she did not feel the ordinance would allow the enlarging of the site of a nonconforming use, whether or not that expansion was for parking or whatever. Commissioner Versteeg asked what part of the Howe, Inc. operation is nonconforming. The Secretary stated that that was difficult to define. He pointed out that the City had adopted an ordinance to phase out the ammoniating process at Howe, Inc. in 1979 , but that that ordinance was ruled in- valid. The Planning Assistant stated that it was his understanding that Howe, Inc. is considered a single use with various aspects. He stated that the use as a whole is considered nonconforming. He pointed out that allowing the proposed expansion might lay the ground- work for a rezoning of the two houses to the west to I-2, which was in 1977 . He raised the possibility of leaving the access right-of-way in public ownership and allow for an off-site accessory parking arrange- ment similar to that allowed at Federal Lumber. Mr. Tom Howe stated that he was willing to sign a stipulation that the expansion of the land area would not constitute an expansion of the nonconforming aspect at Howe. Commissioner Simmons stated that she had trouble with Section 35-111 Subsection 1 of the Zoning ordi- nance which prohibits expansion of the land area of a nonconforming use. There followed a brief discussion of what this ordinance meant in relation to Howe, Inc. Chairman Lucht stated that he felt the project should be allowed, that it would have an obvious benefit to the neighborhood. The question, he stated, was how to allow this legally. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission should give staff direction and that it would work on developing a legal basis for allowing the ex- pansion. Commissioner Ainas suggested the possibility of an ordi- nance amendment to forbid the expansion of nonconforming aspects rather than nonconforming uses as a whole. Chairman Lucht stated that he would not agree with such a change in the ordinance. The Secretary added that the nonconforming use provision of the City's Zoning Ordinance is essentially mandated by State Law and by various court decisions which have defined the status of nonconforming uses. Chairman Lucht stated that the Planning Commission could either uphold the appeal, deny it or table the application. He stated that he felt there were grounds for upholding the appeal, but did not know how to square them with the ordinance. The Planning Assistant again offered the idea of leaving the land in 1-13-83 -7- public ownership and allowing an off-site°accessory parking arrange- ment. Mr. Tom Howe stated that would complicate the situation. He pointed out that the County would take over the right-of-way for Highway 152 in the near future and that they might not lease the land to Howe for parking. He also pointed out that his father does not like to pay taxes and invest money in land that he does not own. Chairman Lucht concluded that the Planning Commission needed a stipu- lation that the expansion would not constitute an expansion of a non- conforming use. There was a brief discussion of directing staff to arrive at .such a stipulation. Commissioner Malecki asked whether- he stipulation could note the area used by Howe, Inc. in 1957 and note that ..such an expansion does not go beyond the amount of area used when Howe, Inc. became nonconforming. The Secretary stated that that possibility could be looked into. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 83001 (Howe, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded y Commissioner Manson to table Application No. 83001 with direction to staff to find a way of allowing the expansion of the Howe, Inc. site for parking purposes and to stipulate that it is not an expansion of the nonconforming use. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Simmons left at 11:16 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEM The Secretary briefly reviewed a draft ordinance amendment with the Planning Commission to allow expansion of one and two family homes that are built at setbacks which are nonconforming. He pointed out that the footnote would be No. 12 rather than No. 11. ' ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded y Commissioner Manson to recom- mend approval of an ordinance amendment to allow expansion of one and two family dwellings. that are nonconforming as to setback. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. ` The motion passed. The Secretary briefly noted that the Commission had received a new meeting schedule for 1983 and asked them to review it. He noted that the March 3rd meeting would be held in order to review a number of applications in connection with the Senior Citizen's project at I-94 and Highway 100 . ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion 'passed unanimously. ` The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:20 p.m. Chaff man 1-13-83 8 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 82042 Applicant: Universal Sign Company Location: 6415 James Circle Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance to erect a freestanding identification . sign 50 ft. in height at the Budgetel Inn, 6415 James Circle. This application was acknowledged briefly and tabled by the Planning Commission at its November 4, 1982 meeting because the applicant wished to revise its request before full consideration by the Commission. At that time, the request entailed a variance from the sign area restrictions as well as the height restriction. The revised request of the applicant is for a height variance only. We have attached for the Commission's reconsideration the materials submitted for the November 4, 1982 meeting. As was indicated in our report at that time, we recommend denial of the request on the grounds that there appears to be adequate means of conveying the message to travelers without exceeding the limitations of the ordinance. We have suggested that such permitted signery be erected before pursuing a variance. However, the applicant has considered the suggestion and elected to pursue the variance. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 1-13-83 1 1