Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 04-25 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 APRIL 25, 1985 _ CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht explained that Commissioners Sandstrom and Nelson had called to say they would be unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 11 , 1985 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the April 11 , 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Manson. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85007 (Sign Service, Inc.) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to erect an 8' x 10' freestanding identification sign at 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85007 attached) . Commissioner Malecki asked whether other dealerships in the area with freestanding signs received variances for those freestanding signs. The Secretary responded in the negative, except for Iten Chevrolet which received a height variance for its sign prior to the adoption of the current Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Manson noted that the sign for Iten Leasing had to be shortened to meet the requirements of a roof sign and was in compliance with the ordinance. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. C. L. McCline of Sign Service, Inc. told the Planning Commission that he was in an embarassing situation. He explained that last fall Ryan Olds went into the leasing business and wanted a sign to announce its rates. At that time, he checked with Building Official Will Dahn and was told that he could have such a sign. He explained that Mr. Dahn had not checked on the previous variance of 10 years ago. He noted that the Sign Ordinance allows for two freestanding signs for a business such as Ryan Olds. He went on to explain that there had been a delay in putting up the sign since last fall. He stated that he fabricated the sign and applied for a sign permit and put up the sign before the permit was issued. He stated that he proceeded on the basis that the sign was permitted because of his conversation with Building Official Will Dahn. Mr. McCline showed the Planning Commission a picture of the sign panels on the top of the Ryan Olds building. He stated that he felt that these panels were part of the wall and that the signs were, therefore, wall signs. He asked that the Commission consider the signs as wall signs and, therefore, allow the freestanding signs normally permitted to an automobile dealership. 4-25-85 -1- PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85007) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Tom Ryan of Ryan Olds explained that the car dealership got into the rental car business last fall. He stated that the sign was erected on the assumption that it would be all right. He explained to the Planning Commission that, before his father owned the car dealership, there were signs in the same area advertising Velie Oldsmobile. He stated that because of the material of the building which picked up a shadow of the sign on the wall, it would have looked ugly not to replace the Velie Olds sign when the business changed hands in 1975. He noted that there are other signs on the site including a freestanding sign and a number of wall signs. Chairman Lucht asked about the freestanding sign. The Secretary explained that it is a directional sign and does not count toward freestanding identification signery which was excluded by the 1975 variance (Application No. 75004) . He stated that he believed that all other signery on the property is in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. The Secretary explained that the purpose of the variance is to bring most of the site into conformance with the Sign Ordinance. He explained that prior to the 1975 variance there were a number of freestanding signs that were nonconforming on the site. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the Ryan Oldsmobile building elevation and pointed out the three sign boards at the top of the building. He stated that he did not consider these to be wall signs since they all projected above the point where the vertical departs from the horizontal. He stated that under the ordinance these signs are roof signs and that they are all higher than is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. Regarding the reference to former Building Official Will Dahn, the Secretary acknowledged that a conversation had been held, but that no advice had been given to erect a sign without a permit. He stated that he did not feel the previous conversation, even though may have conveyed erroneous information, was relevant to the application. Mr. McCline again reiterated the conversation that he had had with Mr. Dahn. He stated that he had checked with the City prior to fabricating the sign and that the sign was made on the basis of erroneous information. He stressed that he had not intended to act outside the law. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Manson stated that she felt the three signs on the top of Bob Ryan Olds were roof signs and that the only logical choice was to reaffirm the previous variance decision (Application No. 75004) . ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85007 (Sign Service, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 85007 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85008 (Ryan Construction Company) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a 4,000 sq. ft. drive-up facility in the office building under construction at Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive (6200 Shingle Creek Parkway) . The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85008 attached) . The Secretary 4-25-85 -2- added that there have been no traffic problems associated with the existing First Western Bank at 1040 Earle Brown Drive. He also reviewed briefly a memo from Director of Public Works Sy Knapp suggesting two additional conditions of approval regarding the granting of easements. He stated that staff recommended seeking an easement at the corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive for pedestrian and landscape improvements as part of a possible future improvement project for the -- area. Also, along the Summit Drive greenstrip, there would be a need for a sidewalk easement in case an extra traffic lane were constructed. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. John Kelly with Ryan Construction Company stated that he had no objection to the conditions of approval and stated that he would answer any questions. Commissioner Bernards asked how the City would determine whether a traffic problem exists, what data would be used to establish whether a traffic problem existed. The Secretary stated that the City would rely on physical observations of the entrance to the site. He stated that the bank does not expect a problem, but that if there is a problem, the access would have to be moved to a point north of the building. He stated that this would be a drastic action, but that it would be effective in terms of relieving traffic problems associated with stacking on the site. Chairman Lucht concluded that the Police would basically determine if a problem existed. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. There followed further brief discussion regarding the south access onto Earle Brown Drive and possible traffic movements into and out of that access related to the bank. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman- Lc Fit then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissoner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION N0. 85008 (Ryan Construction Company) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 85008, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The certificate of occupancy for the bank shall be subject to the installation of 15 minute parking signs at no less than 10 stalls on the south side of the office building. 3. The applicant shall agree in writing that the south entrance to the site off Earle Brown Drive shall be relocated to a point north of the office building upon a determination by the City that a traffic problem related to the operation of the bank exists in Earle Brown Drive. Said agreement to be executed prior to the issuance of the special use permit and prior to building permits for the bank space and shall be filed with the title to the property. 4-25-85 -3- 4. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5. Permit approval acknowledges a proof-of-parking plan received April 11, 1985 from Ryan Construction Company providing 492 parking stalls on site. If it becomes necessary to install some r deferred spaces, those located in the Earle Brown Drive greenstrip shall be installed first and those potentially under the landscaped islands installed last. 6. The applicant shall agree in writing to install proof-of-parking spaces upon a determination by the City that a parking deficiency exists on the site. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of building permits for the bank. 7. The applicant shall grant easements to the City for the purpose of allowing landscape improvements at the southwesterly corners of the property. 8. The applicant shall grant a 5' sidewalk easement along the southerly side of the property to the City. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. There was a brief discussion with Jack Weber of First Western Bank. He explained that the lobby hours would be the same as the hours of the drive-up tellers and that this would relieve excessive stacking on the site related to the drive-up. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Hennepin County Plan for Dispersal of Residential Facilities The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to a plan developed by Hennepin County for dispersal of Group Homes treating mentally retarded and mentally ill adults. He stated that the plan would result in more group homes coming to the suburbs in the future. He stated that the Hennepin County Board has probably adopted the plan by now and that an earlier draft which had been more hostile to suburbs was modified after feedback from suburban governments. He stated that there is still some criticism in the report of suburban areas. This is because of resistance to such facilities coming into residential neighborhoods. The Secretary also referred the Commission to a letter from Wes Kooistra with Outreach Group Homes and from Jim Thomson with the City Attorney's office. He stated that Jim Thomson's letter addresses the nonconforming situation that would result on Lyndale Avenue North if group homes were limited strictly to 6 clients in an R1 zone. He stated that the letter reasons that if the clientele were to drop to 6 or less for a period of two years or more that the home could not resume a clientele of more than 6. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission and City Council have to look at whether group homes with more than 6 clients should be looked at as permitted or special uses. He stated, that if the facilities live within the occupancy limits of the State law, the City is essentially barred from denying such facilities. He explained that the court case with Northwest Residence ruled that the City would have to use the same standards with a residential facility as with other residential 4-25-85 -4- uses allowed in the same zoning district. In Brooklyn Center's case, he said, this meant the occupancy standards of the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. He stated that a separate parking requirement might be allowed for residential facilities based on the number of clients and the number of personnel working at the facility. The Secretary explained that the City has a responsibility of meeting the mandate of the State law for the dispersal of residential care facilities for mentally ill and mentally handicapped. The question, he said, is whether the City should do the minimum under the law, or allow more occupants by special use permit in a given zoning district. Chairman Lucht asked whether it was possible, in the ordinance, to consider the balance of such facilities across the City. He expressed a concern regarding the concentration of such facilities similar to what has happened in Minneapolis. The Secretary responded that the County plan cites a level of 112% of the County's population as the potential number of beds that would be needed for such facilities. He stated that this would work out to about 150 beds in Brooklyn Center. He agreed that the City should try to disperse such facilities throughout the City, rather than to allow them to be concentrated in a single neighborhood. He reviewed the location of existing facilities for mentally ill and mentally handicapped individuals and stated there was a fairly good balance at present in the community. Commissioner Malecki stated that the advantage of public hearings is that they serve an educational purpose in making neighborhood residents aware of what to expect with such facilities. She stated that it also enables the City to help balance some of these concerns with the need to disperse the facilities throughout the County. The Secretary agreed, but added that residents may resent the hearing process if they conclude that they have no real affect on the decisions as to whether a residential facility is located in their neighborhood. The Secretary explained that the City cannot look at the concerns within the facilities as to operation which are covered by State licensing. He stated that the City has to look at the impact of such facilities on surrounding properties. He cited the concerns that are bound to be expressed by the neighbors and concluded that the time of the public hearing process might help to mitigate some of those concerns, but probably not entirely. b. Cathy Rausch Home Occupation The Secretary then reviewed with the Planning Commission two changes in the proposed home occupation at 3000 63rd Avenue North. He explained that the applicant wishes to put a sidewalk on the east and south sides of the house and bring clients into the front of the house rather than in the rear as had been planned. He also stated that she wishes to change the evening hours on Friday to Thursday and only work until 5:00 p.m. on Friday. The Secretary stated that he did not think the addition of the sidewalk would result in parking associated with the home occupation on 63rd Avenue North. He noted that there is already a sidewalk leading from 63rd Avenue North to the front of the house. He also stated that the sidewalk could be put in by the owners at any time without permit approval. He also noted that a condition of the Special Use Permit prohibited on-street parking with the home occupation. By consensus Chairman Lucht and the rest of the Commission had no problems with the proposed changes to the special use permit and agreed that a formal amendment was not necessary. c. May 6, 1985 Council Meeting The Secretary then informed the Commission that Short-Elliott-Hendrickson would be 4-25-85 -5- e presenting its final traffic analysis to the City Council at the May 6, 1985 meeting. He stated that the Planning Commission was invited to attend that Council meeting to observe the presentation and offer whatever input it wished. ADJOURNMENT Following a discussion of upcoming business, there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Chai an 4-25-85 -6-