Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 01-30 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 JANUARY 30, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Mike Nelson, Wallace Bernards and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Sandstrom was on vacation and was excused. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary then administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Malecki for a two year term on the Planning Commission to expire at the end of 1987. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1986 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the January 16, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Malecki. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86002 (Dan Baker) The Secretary then introduced the first item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land at the southwest corner of Noble Avenue North and 63rd Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86002 attached). Commissioner Wallerstedt asked why the plat had to be reviewed by the Planning Commission if both proposed lots met the requirements of City Ordinance. The Secretary stated that the procedure required by City Ordinance is that all plats be reviewed, whether or not there is a variance. Commissioner Bernards asked why there was a 30' setback from the south property line. The Secretary explained that the minimum setback is 10' , but that the back of the house would face to the south and the front toward 63rd Avenue North to the north. In answer to a question from Commissioner Wallerstedt regarding utility as-built information, the City Engineer explained that the construction drawings for the water and sewer in Noble Avenue do not show whether service lines were made to either lot in the proposed subdivision. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Dale Hallon, a home builder working with the applicant, stated that they planned to build a 62' wide house on the southerly lot that would be a 1500 sq. ft. tri-level house. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86002) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. 1-30-86 -1- CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Notion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86002 (Dan Baker) Notion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No._ 86002, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised to indicate a 51 side drainage and utility easement along the west side of the plat. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86003 (Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site plan and special use permit approval to construct an off-site parking lot west of Dale Tile for the tennis club on the south side of Lakebreeze Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86003 attached). The Secretary also suggested two additional conditions regarding an access to lift station #6 and observance of the sight triangle. Commissioner Bernards inquired as to the pedestrian route between the proposed off- site lot and the existing tennis club. The Secretary indicated that route on the overhead transparency. Commissioner Bernards then inquired as to the speed limit on the street separating the lot and the tennis club and expressed a concern regarding the people crossing the street with cars coming around a turn in the road. The Secretary acknowledged the possible conflict and suggested that perhaps warning signs would be necessary. Commissioner Bernards asked whether an officially designated crosswalk should be installed. The City Engineer stated that that was a possibility, but added that he did not know how similar situations were treated elsewhere in the City. The Secretary suggested that perhaps the matter should be reviewed by the Administrative Traffic Advisory Commission and that this requirement could be added as a condition to the approval. Commissioner Bernards then asked what the parking requirement was for the tennis club. The Secretary answered that the parking requirement was.reviewed at the time the tennis club was originally proposed. He stated that the ordinance requirement was lowered somewhat, but that it was still considerably higher than what was originally proposed by the applicant. He stated that the staff felt confident that the 119 spaces in the proposed off-site lot would be adequate for the parking demand of the tennis club in addition to the 262 on-site spaces. There followed a discussion of the European Health Spa and the parking problems associated with it. Chairman Lucht noted that the peak parking demand for athletic clubs is generally in January and February when people are most concerned about getting into an exercise routine. 1-30-86 -2- Commissioner Ainas noted that the Brooklyn United Methodist Church at 71st and Brooklyn Boulevard has an off-site parking lot. The Secretary stated that that parking lot was probably installed prior to the City's ordinance. He noted that Harron Methodist Church also has an off-site lot across a public street. He added that the Red Lobster and the Green Mill restaurants have off-site lots located across private roads. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Alan Kimpell, the architect for the project, stated that he could answer questions of the Commission. He stated that nothing presented in the staff report or the discussion presented obstacles that could not be worked out. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86003) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, Chairman Lucht called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bernards asked what the timetable was for installing the proposed lot. Mr. Kimpell stated that, in all likelihood, it would begin in the spring. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86003 (Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 86003, subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits for the lower level of the multi-purpose building. 2. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 3. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 4. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. Special use permit approval is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. 6. The applicant shall revise the plans, prior to consideration by the City Council, to indicate concrete delineators at the north end of the interior rows of parking. 7. A 25' sight triangle shall be preserved at the intersection of the proposed Grimes Avenue North and Lakebreeze Avenue North intersections in accordance with City ordinance. 1-30-86 -3- 8. The plans shall be revised to provide a separate access for City utility vehicles servicing lift station #6, said access to be appropriately signed and paid for by the City. 9. The pedestrian crossing between the proposed 4f f-site lot and the tennis club shall be reviewed by the Administrative Traffic Advisory Commission for the possible need for a crosswalk, warning signs, etc. prior to the issuance of the special use permit. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEM (Sign Ordinance) The Secretary then introduced a discussion of the City's Sign Ordinance. He noted that one of two recently proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance had been adopted by the City Council, that being in regard to signery at enclosed shopping malls. He stated that the other ordinance regarding garage sale signs had failed, probably because of an allowance for 10 sq. ft. off-site garage sale signs whereas off-site real estate signs can only be 2 1/2 sq. ft. The Secretary stated that the real estate signs permitted by the ordinance were confusing to enforce. The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to an article in the Zoning and Planning Law Report regarding signs and billboards. He noted that the article discusses aesthetics as a basis for regulation of signery. He stated that he would like to throw out on the table for the Commission's consideration the idea of using aesthetics as a criteria for approving signs. The Secretary stated that a wholesale change in the Sign Ordinance was probably not needed, but that a reevaluation of the ordinance on a section-by- section basis could be undertaken and suggestions made. Chairman Lucht noted the provision allowing 30% of wall area to be devoted to signery and stated that this was probably in need of revision. The Secretary noted that the amendment for enclosed shopping malls limited signery in those establishments to 10% of.wall area. He stated that the City should observe what the impact of that ordinance amendment would be on signery. The Planner noted that one possible rationale for generous wall sign provisions would be to discourage use of freestanding signs which may be considered more obnoxious. The Secretary acknowledged that this was a possible justification for the 30% provision, but that it was generally felt that this provision should be reviewed and probably reduced. The Secretary noted that the City has a survey of other sign ordinances that is about 5 years old that can be consulted. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the portion of the Sign Ordinance relating to portable signs lacked clarity. He asked how a truck with a sign painted on it parked on someone's property to act as a sign would be treated. The Secretary noted the example of a van for Sharpcuts in Westbrook Mall that had been parked in front of Westbrook Mall advertising the price of haircuts for some time. He stated that such signs were very difficult to deal with and that, to prohibit such signs, might be considered a violation of the freedom of speech. Commissioner Ainas also cited an example of a dog on a leash the previous summer that was walking up and down 63rd Avenue North with a garage sale sign on its back. He stated that he felt this was really a portable sign. There followed a discussion of enforcement of the Sign Ordinance. 1-30-86 -4- The Secretary, in reviewing basic issues to be looked at, stated that he hoped the City would continue to ban billboards. He asked the Commission if they had other concerns. Commissioner Ainas stated that he would just as soon leave the Sign Ordinance alone except for the provisions related to portable signs. Commissioner Nelson asked what kinds of complaints the staff encounters regarding the ordinance and whether they had to do with temporary signs. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that Administrative Permits for promotions often become a bone of contention with private businesses who want to have more promotions and longer promotions than allowed by City ordinance. He also noted that many buildings wish to put space for lease banners up which are not permitted except by an Administrative Land Use Permit. Commissioner Nelson stated that he had two basic comments regarding the Sign Ordinance: one had to do with the number of sizes allowed in the ordinance. He stated that fewer sizes should be listed as possibilities in the Sign Ordinance. He also stated that there seemed to be a lack of enforcement, especially regarding real estate signs for open houses. He noted that he lived on a corner lot and that his property was often used to put real estate signs up without his permission. The Secretary acknowledged these comments and noted that there are many types of real estate signs allowed under the ordinance which may all be different sizes. He stated that the purpose of the ordinance should perhaps be limited to regulating the size and the height and the appearance of such signs and whether they are freestanding or wall signs, rather than being too concerned about the message. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked how judgments were made as to whether Administrative Land Use Permits could be issued or not. The Secretary stated that those judgments were made administratively. He stated that in some cases there were variances from City ordinances implied by the issuance of an Administrative Land Use Permit, but that this is allowed for under the ordinance as long as traffic safety and other basic concerns are met. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business, there was a motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to adjourn the meeti of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimous ' The Planning Comm' n adjourned at 9:05 P.M. C irm 1-30-86 -5- 1 1