Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 07-26 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 JULY 26, 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Hal Pierce at 7:38 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 12, 1979 Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve the minutes of the July 12 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor, Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis , Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Malecki and Hawes. APPPLICATION NO. 79029 (George Shimshock) Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item for consideration was Ap- plication No. 79029 submitted by George Shimshock, a request to subdivide two pre-existing lots between Bryant Avenue North and Colfax Avenue North at 59th Avenue North. The Secretary explained that the two lots described as Tract Q and Tract R of R. L.S. No. 1271 were combined for tax purposes around 1971 . He stated that the applicant wishes simply to redivide the properties along the same lot line. Tract R will be roughly 79 feet by 140 feet and Tract Q will be roughly 80 feet by 131 feet. The Secretary pointed out that while a lot with deficiency exists for both lots (corner lots should be 90 feet wide in the R1 zone) , a variance is not necessary since lot width is a pre-existing condition, unaffected by this redivision. He also stated that Section 35-500 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that sub- standard lots of record prior to 1976 in the RI and R2 zones shall be considered buildable as long as all new construction meets current ordinance setback re- quirements. The only zoning criteria in question in this division, he said, are lot depth and lot area. In both these respects, the application complies with ordinance requirements. The Secretary added that the applicant intends to move a house onto the lot at 5900 Colfax Avenue North to be situated in accord- ance with ordinance requirements. Chairman Pierce inquired when the lots in question were created. The Planning Assistant answered that the lots had been platted in 1968. The Secretary pointed out on a transparency of R.L.S. No. 1271 that the property line between Tract Q and Tract R is located three feet from Mr. Shimshock's garage in order to meet minimum ordinance requirements. Commission Hawes inquired whether new construction on the site would meet present ordinance requirements . The Secretary answered that it would, adding that if the lots had been created prior to 1957, structures would have been allowed to within 15 feet of 59th Avenue. Since these lots were created later, however, structures must be set back 25 feet from 59th Avenue and the applicant is aware of this. Chairman Pierce asked whether both of the lots created by the re-subdivision would meet square footage requirements. The Secretary responded that they would. 7-26-79 -1- Commissioner Hawes asked whether the lot to the north of Tracts Q and R was a single lot. The Secretary explained that it. actually consisted of two lots whin were also combined for tax purposes. Chairman Pierce called on Mrs. Shimshock to speak to the application. Mrs. Shimshock explained that the area now described as Tracts Q and R of R.L.S. 1271 were formerly two lots, one 225 feet deep and one roughly 45 feet deep. This lot division was consi-stent with all of the other lots on Bryant Avenue North prior to 1968. She explained that in 1968 a registered land survey created many new build- able lots on Colfax Avenue North by placing the property lines roughly down the middle of the block. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79029 (George Shimshock) Motion by Commissioner Hawes, seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 79029 submitted by George Shimshock to resubdivide two pre- existing lots combined for tax purposes, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The subdivision is subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the City Assessor prior to filing with the County. . 2. The subdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. Th_- motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 79046 (St. Alphonsus Church) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, Application No. 79046, con- sisting of a Special Use Permit for the construction of a 24 by 30 foot addition to the St. Alphonsus Church service garage. The Secretary pointed out that the garage is located on the west portion of the Church site at 7025 Halifax Avenue North, just beyond the outer service drive. He explained that churches are a special use within the R1 zone and any construction requires Planning Commission and City Council review and approval . The Secretary gave a brief description of the proposed construction. The structure is to be concrete block with a frame roof, consistent with the exist- ing garage. When completed, the garage will be 24 by 60 feet, double its present size. He noted that the enlarged building will be able to house recreational and maintenance equipment presently stored outside. He explained that the pro- posed structure requires no additional parking and added that parking provisions on the site are more than adequate. He also stated that the Building Official , following a site review, has determined that no additional landscaping is re- quired for the site at this time. Commissioner Hawes asked whether the service drive on which the garage is located is a public street. The Secretary explained that it is only a private drive used by the church. In answer to Commissioner Theis, the Secretary explained that the garage would have clear access to the service drive. Chairman Pierce asked Father Lowry if he had anything to add to the Secretary's presentation. Father Lowry answered that he had nothing to add. The Secretary explained that while the project was minor in scope, because churches are special uses, it is necessary to review any proposed construction. Chairman Pierce asked whether the City was holding a bond for site improvements on the church site. The Secretary answered that the City was not holding a bond and recommended that no bond be held in this case. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pierce asked if there were any other persons present to speak on the application. Noting that no one else was present, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commis- sioner Manson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor, Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 7-26-79 -2- Chairman Pierce asked the applicant whether the exterior of the addition of the garage would be consistent with the existing garage. Father Lowry answered that it would. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79046 (St. Alphonsus Church) Motion by Commissioner Manson, seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend ap- proval of Application No. 79046, special use permit approval for construction of an addition to the church service garage at 7025 Halifax Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The permit is granted to the applicant as user of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. All maintenance and recreational equipment shall be stored in the garage when not in seasonal use to minimize outdoor storage. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 79047 (Church of the Nazarene) The Secretary explained that Application No. 79047 submitted by Church of the Nazarene for special use permit approval for a day care center had been with- drawn the day before. He recommended that the Commission acknowledge the with- drawal of the application. ACTION ACKNOWLEDGING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION N0. 79047 (Church of the Nazarene) Motion by Commissioner Theis, seconded by Commissioner Manson to acknowledge with- drawal of Application No. 79047, submitted by the Church of the Nazarene, con- sisting of a special use permit approval for a day care center. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Theis inquired whether the fee paid for the application was refunded to the applicant. The Secretary answered that he did not refund the fee in this case. He explained that the research had been done and the costs had been in- curred for processing the application. He noted that inspections had been made by City personnel and notices sent to surrounding properties. He added that if these costs had not been incurred before the withdrawal , the application fee would have been refunded. Commissioner Hawes asked whether the City is making any attempt to control the number of day care facilities in the City. The Secretary responded that there are not that many day care centers in the City at this time, and added that the special use permit process would allow the City to screen day care approvals and withdraw approval of presently permitted day care centers. Commissioner Hawes explained that he was getting at the question of supply and demand. The Secretary answered that those considerations were not the basis for withdrawing this application. He explained that the withdrawal was based on the cost of some facilities required by the Sanitarian in accordance with various codes . There was a brief discussion of day care centers . The Secretary explained that State Law has been amended to make day care of up to ten children a permitted use in a single family residential zone, and that the number of wards allowed in a foster care home is six. 7-26-79 -3- DISCUSSION ITEMS TRAFFIC STUDY BY B.R.W. The Secretary next referred the Commission to a Traffic Study submitted by B.R.W. He reviewed its contents in some detail . He noted that the purpose of the study was to examine the development options for the property owned by Mr. Charlson, north of Brookdale Ford, in terms of accessibility to the site, impact on area wide traffic patterns, capital costs for street improvements, land requirements for streets, and the relationship of any development proposal to the policy for access to Shingle Creek Parkway. Regarding the recommended policy on access to Shingle Creek Parkway, the Secret- ary noted that the report offers four guidelines: 1 . Access to Shingle Creek Parkway should be from public streets; exceptions can be made to serve a major generator or multiple developments. 2. The minimum distances between median openings should be 400 feet; the average distance should be 600 feet. 3. Curb cuts without a median opening providing for "right turns only" to a major generator should be more than 250 feet from the nearest access point. 4. The number of access points should be minimized as far as feasible within the requirements for land development in an orderly and practical fashion. The Secretary then pointed out that the potential users for the site include a racquet. and swim club, a retail furniture store, a paint store and a tire store. He then read a description of the original street plan proposed in a preliminary plat by Brauer and Associates . The report notes that access into the site is provided by a cul-de-sac from Shingle Creek Parkway, located at the approximate center of the undeveloped portion of the site. A new cut in the median and curb are shown at the cul-de-sac and two new curb cuts in addition to the one at the cul-de-sac are provided for access to parking areas. The existing median cut, north of County Road 10 serving Brookdale Ford would be closed. The Secretary then described various alternatives for street locations to serve the site and where median cuts would be located under each alternative. Alternative One is similar to the original street plan except that the curb cut to the racket and swim club is eliminated. Under Alternative Two, a single cul-de-sac is provided with access to Shingle Creek Parkway at the north edge of the site. A median cut is provided at the cul-de-sac and access is provided to Northwestern Bell from the cul-de-sac. Alternative Three provides two cul-de-sacs, one at the north edge of the site and one at the south edge of the undeveloped area. Median and curb cuts are provided at both cul -de-sacs. Access is provided to Northwestern Bell and Brookdale Ford from the cul-de-sac. Alternative Four provides a new street across the north side of the site and extended easterly across the Cinema parking area to intersect John Martin Drive at Earle Brown Drive. Access is provided from the street to Northwestern Bell . 7-26-79 -4- Under Alternative Five, a cul-de-sac from Shingle Creek Parkway at the south edge of the undeveloped area would be added to the plan with a street along the north edge of the site. This plan would require a median cut at each public street. Alternative Six is similar to Alternative Four except that the new street crosses through the center of the undeveloped area instead of at the north edge. The new street in this plan intersects John Martin Drive at Earle Brown Drive the same as in Alternative Four. The Secretary pointed out that under all of the alternatives for street develop- went the median cuts presently serving the Brookdale Ford site and the North- western Bell site would be eliminated. The Secretary then reviewed the evaluation criteria outlined in the report. Among them were: accessibility to the site, impact on area wide traffic patterns, capital cost, land requirements, and relationship to the proposed policy for access onto Shingle Creek Parkway. For each of these factors in the evaluation, the Secretary reviewed the measures used in comparing the alternatives. The Secretary then referred the Commission to various diagrams in the report which depicted traffic patterns to and from the site for each alternative. He noted that the traffic forecasts for the site are generally higher for the alter- naitves which propose to serve the site with a through street rather than with a cul-de-sac. The Secretary then read the report's evaluation of the alternatives. Accessibility to the site was evaluated by estimating travel times to and from the site for each alternative and by judging how well a driver could perceive the relationship between a destination within the proposed development and the route needed to reach that destination. In general , alternatives which propose to serve the development with cul-de-sacs scored low. Impact on areawide traffic patterns was evaluated on the basis of two factors: interference with through traffic on Shingle Creek Parkway, and relationship to access to neighboring developments. Interference with through traffic on Shingle Creek Parkway was measured by the number of new access points required, distance between these access points and the forecasted traffic volume generated by the site that would use Shingle Creek Parkway. The report indicated that Alter- natives One, Two, Four and Six would be preferable from this standpoint since they would have only one new median opening onto Shingle Creek Parkway. All alternatives would meet the recommended requirement for minimum distance between access points . The report concluded that access through adjacent developments would be better with Alternatives Four and Six because no cul -de-sacs are pro- vided. (Some drivers not familiar with the area might mistakenly use a cul-de- sac in attempting to reach a destination on John Martin Drive) . Costs for street construction were estimated for each alternative using current unit costs for similar type projects . A 70 foot right-of-way width was assumed for estimation of land area required for streets . Land area requirements in- cluded land required for roadway both inside and outside of the project area. As to the policy for access onto Shingle Creek Parkway, the report concluded that all alternatives would meet the proposed policy but Alternatives One, Two, Four and Six would require only one access point while the other alternatives would have two. 7-26-79 -5- The Secretary concluded his review of the B.R.W. report by discussing its recom- mended plan. The report recommends Alternative Four, subject to solving the following problems: "A portion of the northwest part of the parking area for Cinema I , II, III 'and IV would be required for street right-of-way. The possibility of the acquisition of this property, either through purchase, land trading, or shared parking must be resolved before final selection of this alternative. In developing the alignment for the new street across the north side of the site, it would be advantageous to cross the southeast corner of the Northwestern Bell property. This would reduce the amount of parking area needed from the Cinema property and would permit flatter curvature of the street. " The report considers the advantages of Alternative Four to be as follows: 1 . Alternative Four would provide good accessibility to the area. 2. Traffic to and from the site would not unduly interfere with through traffic on Shingle Creek Parkway. 3. Drivers destined to adjacent developments would not be confused with a cul-de-sac street system. 4. With Alternative Four, there is more flexibility in developing land within the project because the new street would not bi-sect the available land. " The report concludes that the major disadvantages of Alternative Four are: "1 . Construction costs would be more than with some of the other alternatives. 2. Acquisition of land for streets outside the project area would be required. 3. Coordination of adjacent property owners is required." The Secretary then referred the Commission to Figure 15 of the report which shows a recommended location for the new street for Alternative Four. The Secretary noted that Alternative Four could be staged by construction of everything up to the Cinema I , II, III, IV property. At a later date the roadway could be extended to John Martin Drive once the City has received dedication of needed public right-of-way. The Secretary also pointed out that under Alternative Four the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and John Martin Drive would most likely be signalized. The traffic volumes forecasted for the new street and Shingle Creek Parkway respectively are close to meeting the volume warrants for a traffic signal at the intersection of these two streets. However, he noted, the signal at John Martin Drive and County Road 10 on Shingle Creek Parkway would most likely provide sufficient gaps in the traffic on Shingle Creek Parkway to allow vehicles on the new street to gain access. After the Secretary had finished his review of the B.R.W. report, Chairman Pierce asked the Planning Commission for comment. Commissioner Hawes stated that he was not convinced that a median cut at the south edge of the Charlson property is necessary. He suggested that traffic probably would" use this cut to go west on County Road 10. He also questioned what would happen to the triangle of land south of the A. F. I . A. site. 7-26-79 -6- The Secretary responded that that area is presently used for joint parking and that some land trading might be necessary. In response to the median cut con- cern, the Secretary stated that most of the traffic using the median cut would be coming from the north and turning left into Brookdale Ford or another user. If access were provided to Brookdale Ford from a cul-de-sac off the public street to the north, this would be confusing to drivers . He added that control of exiting vehicles could be gained by designing the curb cut at Brookdale Ford so that cars could only turn right onto Shingle Creek Parkway. Commissioner Hawes asked if access to the racquet and swim club adjacent to Brookdale Ford could be gained from that south median cut. The Secretary answered that that was possible. Chairman Pierce asked whether the triangle on the west side of the Northwestern Bell Telephone property could be subdivided. The Secretary answered that the area is used for proof of parking in case the building is ever used for retail . Commissioner Theis asked whether the installation of the road through to Earle Brown Drive would leave enough parking for Cinema I , II, III, IV. The Secretary answered that he was not certain of the exact numbers of parking spaces involved. He suggested that land trading might be required. Commissioner Hawes asked whether the Commission was going through a futile exercise since the recommended proposal has already been proposed to Rauenhorst, the owner of the Northwestern Bell site. The Secretary answered that up until this time there has been no clear policy statement that the median cut for Northwestern Bell would be closed. Commissioner Hawes expressed concern that if the road did not go through to John Martin Drive, the access for all of the property on the Charlson site would be confused. The Secretary stated that the next alternative would be in the cul-de-sac in the middle of the Charlson site and close off all other median cuts between County Road 10 and John Martin Drive. In response to a question from Commissioner Erickson, the Secretary stated that both curb cuts would be allowed under the original proposal . Commissioner Hawes asked whether there was a median cut on County Road 10 in the vicinity of Brookdale Ford. The Secretary explained that there is not a median cut at that location and pointed out that the plan would not prevent private access agreements to Brookdale Ford and Northwestern Bell . Chairman Pierce inquired as to the assessment of road improvements . The Secretary answered that he was not sure whether Brookdale Ford was included in the assess- ment district. He noted, however, that Cinema I , II, III, IV, A.F.I .A. and Northwestern Bell would be assessed for street improvements to the Charlson property, and that the Charlson property has been assessed for street improve- ments to other properties in the assessment district. Commissioner Theis asked whether the City has ever acquired land for public streets in the past:. The Secretary answered that to his knowledge all streets have been dedicated and the staff is not recommending a change in that policy at this time. Commissioner Theis noted that this would require dedication of land from the Northwestern Bell site if the recommended alternative is to be implemented. Commissioner Hawes asked whether the streets indicated on the plan would be public or private. The Secretary answered that the proposed plan comprehends public streets. Chairman Pierce then called on Mr. Brauer representing the owner of the property to speak on the study's recommendation. Mr. Brauer stated that 99% of the time shared streets imply shared right-of-way. He complained about the long delay at coming around to the plan which he had originally proposed over a year ago. He also stated that all of the points made in the study have been made to Northwestern Bell in the past. 7-26-79 -7- Mr. Brauer explained that the platting of areas south of John Martin Drive and east of Shingle Creek Parkway is horrible and that his original recommendation was the best rational approach under the circumstances. This, however, did not coincide with the interests of neighboring property owners. He noted that Northwestern Bell would lose its present median cut under the proposed policy for access onto Shingle Creek Parkway, and he recommended that that policy be adopted. He concluded by saying that his client was willing to take the risk that the road would not go through if the plat at least indicated that it would. Commissioner Hawes asked Mr. Brauer if the applicant was anxious to develop the site. Mr. Brauer answered that he was, but that a chicken-and-egg problem existed over access and marketability of,_the property. He added that under the status quo, everyone is satisfied except- Mr. Charlson. Commissioner Hawes asked Mr. Brauer whether he would go along with Alternative Four. Mr. Brauer stated that as long as there was some assurance that the road would, in fact, go through to John Martin Drive, he would favor the plan. The Secretary interjected to say that there was no problem with Alternative Two as a phase for construction, but that continuing the road to John Martin Drive would require dedication of land which might take some time. The Secretary added, however, there must be assurance that the roadway will go through as Alternative Four proposes because Alternative Two, by itself, would be poor planning. Commissioner Erickson asked whose responsibility it is to get the agreements for dedication of right-of-way. The Secretary answered that the private parties would have to agree to this among themselves . Commissioner Erickson asked whether any of these agreements had been obtained yet. Mr. Brauer answered that only Brookdale Ford had cooperated with their proposal to this point. At that point, Chairman Pierce recognized Mr. Charlson. Mr. Charlson stated that he had owned the property for 27 years and had previously dedicated land for Shingle Creek Parkway. At that time, he said, the village assured him that it would be cooperative in helping him develop his property. He noted that taxes are getting higher every year and that this made the need for developing the property even greater. He stated that many efforts had been made to find the solution for developing and that after a great deal of time the only alternative that assured the development of the property was a cul-de-sac. Michelle Foster, of Rauenhorst Corporation, stated that her firm had been coop- erative with the applicant, but could not agree to dedicating any land. She allowed that Rauenhorst might be willing to sell land for the road if it were acquired. Chairman Pierce asked her which alternative she preferred. Ms . Foster replied that Alternative Four was certainly preferable over the cul-de-sac. She stated that Rauenhors would be looking for access to a median cut to com- pensate for loss of its existing median cut. Mr. Charlson stated that in his opinion Rauenhorst Corporation had not been very cooperative in trying to reach a solution to allow him to develop his property. He objected to the suggestion that he dedicate all of the land for public right-of-way when much of the benefits would acrue to the Northwestern Bell property. Commissioner Theis asked Ms . Foster if Rauenhorst had been aware of the closing of their median cut. Ms . Foster answered that they had not been aware and added that it would definitely affect their position. Mr. Scott Powell , of Brookdale Ford, stated that he sympathized with Mr. Charlson and that without a median cut traffic to the Brookdale Ford site would certainly be confused. He admitted that Brookdale Ford has little leverage in effecting a solution, but would be happy to work with the parties concerned to help imple- ment Alternative Four. He also stated that he was not opposed to a right-only exit onto Shingle Creek Parkway. 7-26-79 -8- The Commission .. briefly discussed the impact of Alternative Four on the American Family Insurance site. Chairman Pierce noted that the recommeded alternative would not hurt their access. The Secretary added that additional construction on John Martin Drive would adversely affect their visibility and that they would need exposure from another street. In response to a question from Chair- man Pierce, the Secretary stated that Cinema I, II, III, IV, A.F.I .A. , Perkins, Brookdale Ford, Charlson and Northwestern Bell would all be involved in a replat if Alternative Four were agreed to by the private parties . As far as construct- ion, he said that Alternative Two might be built first with the remainder of the road to be finished later. Mr. Brauer stated, however, that his client would not be interested in Alternative Two. Chairman Pierce stated that the consensus of the Planning Commission appeared that Alternative Four is the most desirable, but if it cannot be worked out, Alternative One would be an acceptable backup. The Secretary recommended that the Planning Commission take action to recommend the policy statement for both access and a street plan to the City Council . He added that other parties would be given a copy of the BRW report before the Council meeting and could present their reactions at that time. If the policy were approved by the Council as stated in the B.R.W. report, a plat could be considered by the Planning Com- mission at the August 16 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Brauer stated that he preferred that a plat be approved that night. Chairman Pierce asked whether the City Council could pass Alternative Four as a plat. The Secretary answered that it would be impossible without the proper information. Mr. Brauer stated that the plat, as indicated in Alternative Four, had been in front of the Plan- ning Commission some time ago. The Secretary countered, however, that it would be premature to act on a plat based on a policy not yet approved by the City Council . Chairman Pierce asked whether agreements needed for Alternative Four could be obtained before the City Council meeting. The Secretary answered that he doubted it. Chairman Pierce concluded that approval of any plat would depend on the appropriate agreements. The Secretary stated that, in his opinion; the study and the Planning Commission action give direction to the applicant by indicating an access policy and a preferred street plan. Commissioner Erickson stated that he did not feel the Planning Commission should list the various alternatives in the order of prefer- ence. He recommended that one alternative be recommended to the City Council . ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE POLICY FOR ACCESS ONTO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY CONTAINED IN THE BRW STUDY _ Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of the following policy for access onto Shingle Creek Parkway: 1 . Access to Shingle Creek Parkway should be from public streets; exceptions can be made to serve a major generator or multiple developments. 2. The minimum distance between median openings should be 400 feet, the average distance should be 600 feet. 3. Curb cuts without a median opening, providing for "right-turn only" to a major generator should be more than 250 feet from the nearest other access point. 4. The number of access points should be minimized as far as feasible within the requirements for land development in an orderly and practicable fashion. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 7-26-79 -9- ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF STREET PLAN ALTERNATIVE FOUR Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Erickson to recommend ap- proval of Street Plan Alternative Four shown on Figure 15 of the BRW study subject to the execution of property agreements to put the proposed street all the way through from Shingle Creek Parkway to John Martin Drive. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Hawes stated that he felt the median cut to serve Brookdale Ford should be examined by the City Council for consistency with the proposed access policy. He felt that it should not be allowed since it would result in the same number of median cuts as exists now. He suggested that access to the site be made via the cul -de-sac from the north. Commissioner Malecki and Commissioner Erickson voiced disagreement with this suggestion. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:48 p.m. and resumed at 10:20 p.m. DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS ' Following the recess the Secretary reviewed with the Planning Commission two draft ordinance amendments dealing with freestanding signs for apartment complexes and setbacks from major thoroughfares. The Secretary recalled for the Commission the recently denied variance application of Mr. Melvin Gittleman who sought a variance from the Sign Ordinance that he be allowed to put two freestanding identification signs at the entrance to the Twin Lake North Condominium and apartment complex. He stated that the staff had not had time to make a thorough study of freestanding signs, but added that each community has its own unique Sign Ordinance and he doubted that a consistent pattern would emerge from such a study. He read for the Commission, a rough draft of an ordinance amendment which would allow residential developments for com- plexes in the R3 through R7 districts involving three or more buildings and not less than 36 dwelling units to have either one freestanding sign of no greater than 36 square feet in area and extending no more than ten feet above ground level or two freestanding signs identical in size and message, not greater than 18 square feet in area and no more than five feet in height. This option would be allowed at each major entrance not to exceed two entrances. Chairman Pierce asked how the ordinance defines freestanding signs . The Secretary answered that any sign which is not a wall sign or roof sign is classified as a freestanding sign. He added that wall signs must be attached to the wall of a building. Commissioner Erickson noted that the draft ordinance amendment would not allow the signs proposed by Mr. Gittleman. Chairman Pierce suggested that the word "uniform" in Sub-section 2 be changed to "identical ." The Secretary explained to the rest of the Commission that the City Council did not want to allow two different signs at the same entrance, but seemed amenable to a Sign Ordinance amendment of some kind. The City Council , he said considered two different messages to be confusing. At that point, Chairman Pierce reported that Mr. Gittleman had gone ahead and put up an identification sign in Crystal . Chairman Pierce asked whether the term "freestanding sign" covered signs hung on a fence. The Secretary answered that that is how staff had construed such signs . The Secretary pointed out that staff had discussed the possibility of removing the phrase "three or more buildings" from Section 34-140 3C (3) . This, he noted, would give all complexes with 36 units or more the right to have a freestanding sign. Chairman Pierce stated that he was opposed to such an 7-26-79 -10- amen',-»nt since it would allow freestanding signs in some areas that may be undo-: ! ,able. The Secretary stated that he felt the proposed amendment would give fe flexibility to some apartment complexes. Cos,afl sioner Hawes asked what is sacred about 36 square feet. The Secretary re- sponded that there was nothing sacred about it except that it is a number which can accommodate various shapes with easy calculations. Commissioner Malecki asked whether there was any restriction on the shape of a freestanding sign. The Secretary answered that there was no particular restriction on the shape of such a sign, but that the area of a sign is calculated using right angles . Chairman Pierce asked how height is calculated for freestanding signs . For instance, would the height of a berm be included in the height of a sign. The Secretary answered that to his knowledge, the height of a sign is measured from the base of the sign. Chairman Pierce noted that a five foot high sign could be bermed up to a ten foot height. Commissioner Erickson suggested that Subsection 2 be revised to say that each sign should be no more than 18 square feet. Compiling the various revisions suggested by the Planning Commission, the Secretary offered a possible ordinance amendment worded as follows: "Cluster developments or complexes in R3 through R7 districts involving three or more buildings and not less than 36 dwelling units shall be entitled to one of the following options at each major entrance, not to exceed a total of two entrances: 1 . One freestanding sign no greater than 36 square feet in area and extending not more than 10 feet above ground level . 2. Two identifical freestanding signs, located at opposite sides of the entrance, each not greater than 18 square feet in area and each not to extend more than five feet above ground level ." The Secretary stated that staff would continue to study this section of the Sign Ordinance for possible revisions. The Secretary then brought another draft ordinance amendment to the Commission's attention. He recalled for the Commission that during consideration of the plan submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park for 11 single family homes under Application No. 79024, the question of setback from a major thoroughfare arose relative to rear yard setbacks . An investigation of existing conditions revealed that there are only one or two situations in which a structure is located in a rear yard within 50 feet of a major thoroughfare. He noted, therefore, that an ordinance amendment would not create numerous nonconforming uses . The Secretary stated that staff considers the proposed amendment to require a 50 foot setback from major thoroughfares in rear yards to be appropriate because rear yard setbacks are a public concern as other setbacks and the City Zoning Ordinance presently requires a 50 ft. setback from major thoroughfares in front and side corner yards. He added that certain conditions may serve the purpose of a setback although they do not exist on the property, for instance, noise walls, berming, excess right-of-way, etc. He then read a rough draft ordinance amendment to Section 35-400, footnote number 10: "Setbacks along major thoroughfares as designated in Section 35-900 shall in all cases be at least 50 feet except in cases where mitigating circumstances exist such as noise walls, berms, excess right-of-way or other condition deemed by the Zoning Official to constitute a substitute for such 50 foot setback. In such cases where a substitute does exist, the standard requirement shall apply." 7-26-79 -11- Chairman Pierce inquired whether the setback from major thoroughfares would apply to accessory structures. The Secretary answered that it would apply only to dwellings, but the Planning Assistant noted that both the existing and the proposed language state that setbacks "in all cases" shall be at least 50 feet. Chairman Pierce acknowledged that the line of site is important in front and side corner yards, but not in rear yards. The Secretary stated that some revisions to the ordinance amendment would be necessary to deal with accessory structures. Chairman Pierce stated that he felt noise walls would eliminate most of the problems with the freeway. Commissioner Theis indicated, however, that placing a house within 35 feet of a noise wall would be annoying. The Secretary pointed out that noise walls are usually placed some distance from an actual property line. Commissioner Erickson asked whether the problem with the school district bound- aries had been solved relative to the plat under Application No. 79024. The Secretary answered that an agreement had been reached on a swap, but that the best procedure would involve special legislation which could not be accomplished until next year. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Hawes to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11 :14 p.m. i Chairman 7-26-79 -12-