Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 10-11 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 OCTOBER 11 , 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Hal Pierce at 8:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Hawes and Lucht. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren. Building Official Will Dahn and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPLICATION NO. 79062 (Cinema I, II, III/David Maasch) Fo lowing the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, an application submitted by David Maasch :on behalf of Cinema I, II & IhI for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow`an existing directional sign to continue on the property owned by the American Family Insurance Association at 5901 John Martin Drive. The Secretary explained that: the sign is- located north of a .common entrance drive shared by Cinema, the A:F.I.A. building and Perkins Restaurant. He stated that the area in question was formerly Cinema I, II, III property. He explained that when the A.F.I .A. property was platted, the land on which the sign is located was transferred by B.C.I:P. to the A.F.I.A. site. As a result, the sign is now off-site and, therefore, a billboard which is prohibited by the City's Sign Ordinance. The Secretary stated that A.F.I.A. now intends to erect a freestanding identification sign on the south side of _the entrance drive and added that a condition of permitting any new signs is that all nonconforming signs on the site either be removed or brought into con- formance. The Secretary then pointed out on a transparency the location of the A.F.I.A. and Cinema buildings and their respective signs. The Secretary referred the Commission to a letter of application from the applicant in which it is argued: 1. That the removal. of the sign would create a hardship because theater patrons might miss the entrance and have to drive along a very circuitous route to get back to the theater. 2.- Since the entrance in question is the only point of access to the Cinema and to American Family Insurance, it is vital that directional signery adequately indicate this entrance as serving both developments. 3. The-.events leading up to the present nonconforming situation were beyond the control of the Cinema. 4. Granting of the variance will have no adverse impact on surrounding properties, but will benefit the general public by preventing u-turns on John Martin Drive and other confused traffic patterns. The Secretary next referred the Commission to Section 34-180 of the City Ordinances which contains Standards for a Sign Ordinance Variance. He pointed out that this section allows variances in instances where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the specific property or use under consideration. 10-11-79 -1- The provisions of the ordinance, he added, when considered in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumstances caused by the property owner or the applicant or a predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. A variance, he concluded, may be granted only after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 1 . A particular hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out; 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based unique to the parcel of land or the use thereof for which the variance is sought and are not common, generally, to other property or uses thereof within the same zoning cl ass ificati.on; , . 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements ' in the neighborhood. The Secretary urged the Commission to give careful consideration to these Standards prior to making its recommendation. The Secretary stated that the applicant's letter seems to adequately address the standards of hardship and noninjury to neighboring property,. but does not specifically speak to whether the circumstances are "unique to the parcel of land and not common, generally, to otherproperty .or uses within the same' ning classificiation." The Secretary stated that common access to public right=of-way is not necessarily a unique condition. He added, however, that shared access if "not common, generally," to uses which are located on their own parcel of land and would generally be entitled to their own access. The Secretary concluded his* remarks by stating that he felt the application does meet the Sign Ordinance Standards and, therefore, recommended approval subject to certain conditions In answer .to a question from Commissioner Theis, the Secretary explained that the platting for.the A.F.I.A. site took land from the Cinema site in order to provide frontage on public right-of-way as required by the City Ordinances. As a result, he said, the Cinema sign is now on A.F.I .A. property. Commissioner Erickson arrived at 8:10 p.m. Commissioner Lucht asked whether the proposed A.F.I.A. sign would be on its own property. The Secretary answered that it would, pointing out its locotion on `" the transparency. He explained that if the variance were granted for the <` Cinema sign, the A.F.I .A. sign could be erected. He further explained that the A.F.I.A. -office building is entitled to a sign on its property, and a permit for that sign can be issued only if the nonconforming Cinema entrance sign were removed or a variance for that nonconforming sign were granted. He stated that it was felt that the Cinema entrance sign seems to be located in a rational location and does not seem objectionable. He also commented that the concept of shared access is considered desirable both for the applicant and the general public. 10-11-79 -2- Commissioner Hawes raised the possibility of Earle Brown Drive extending from John Martin Drive through to Shingle Creek Parkway, and asked whether the sign would be allowed to stay should this take place: The Secretary answered that if Earle Brown Drive became a through street, the Cinema would have direct access to a public street and would have no need for an off-site sign. Com- missioner Hawes asked whether the A.F.I .A. wants its sign on the south side of the access drive. Commissioner Lucht commented that it would be to their advantage to have the sign located there and the Secretary added that that was the location proposed by A.F.I .A. Commissioner Lucht asked whether the variance would have to be reviewed in the event that Earle Brown Drive became a through street. The Secretary stated that something like that could be added as a condition of approval . He then briefly discussed various roadway proposals for Earle Brown Drive and alternate procedures for installing the road. Commissioner Erickson asked how large the sign was and how large a sign would be allowed. Mr. Maasch stated that the sign was roughly 4 feet high and about 2h x 3 feet in size. The Secretary noted that this is well below the permitted size for directional signery. Commissioner Erickson asked why it was necessary to limit the size of the sign as a condition of the variance. The Secretary answered that it is felt that the size of the sign is adequate and he would not want to encourage the expansion of the sign if the variance were approved. He noted also that such conditions are within the prerogative of the City in granting the variance. Chairman Pierce asked the applicant if he understood and accepted the conditions outlined by the Secretary and the Planning Commission. The applicant answered that he simply wanted to leave the sign where it was without any alterations. There was a brief discussion regarding the possibility of Earle Brown Drive being extended to Shingle Creek Parkway. The applicant stated that if the road extension was accomplished, he would have no need for a sign at its present location and would move that sign onto his own property. The Secretary referred the Commission's attention to a favorable letter from r 'A.F.I .A. in which they stated they have no objection to leaving the present sign on their property so long as it does not affect their own right to erect a sign. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pierce opened the meeting for a public hearing and inquired whether anyone was present to speak to the application. No one spoke relating to the application.. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Erickson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary again asked Mr. Maasch if he would have any objection to moving the sign onto the Cinema property if Earle Brown Drive were extended. Mr. Maasch answered that the Cinema would not have any objection. The Secretary explained that based on the conditions recommended with the variance Cinema would have to take down their entrance sign if they wished to put up another sign on their property. Chairman Pierce asked whether the granting of the variance would in any way affect the A.F.I.A. sign. The Secretary answered that it would not. 10-11-79 -3- ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79062 (David Maasch/Cinema I, II, III Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 79062 submitted by David Maasch for Cinema I , II, III for a variance to allow a nonconforming directional sign for the Cinema to continue- on the .A.F.I .A. property noting that the Sign Ordinance Variance Standards have b met. The granting of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant agrees not to alter, relocate or enlarge the existing directional sign. 2. The applicant agrees not to erect any other freestanding identification or directional signs along John Martin Drive. 3. If Earle Brown Drive is extended and becomes a public street from John Martin Drive to Shingle Creek Parkway, Cinema signery must come into compliance` with the City's Sign Ordinance. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS SETBACK AMENDMENT The Secretary introduced a recommended ordinance amendment by reminding the Plan- ning Commission of the plat of eleven residential lots at the corner of-Xeiires'. Avenue and Interstate 694, some of which backed up to Freeway right-of-way:- Ae " stated that the Commission felt at that time that a 50 foot setback from major thoroughfare right-of-way should be required in rear yards as well as front and side corner yards. He stated that there is reasonable and rational justification for rear yard setbacks for principal dwellings, but at the same, time recommended that the Commission recognize noise walls or noise berms which may provide sub- stitute shielding. Commissioner Theis inquired whether the new section of Interstate 94 in the southeast section of the City would have noise walls or a depressed roadway.- The Secretary responded that both those features would be provided 'along 94 until it reached its intersection with 694. He stated that noise walls would be in place wherever the highway abutted residential uses. In answer to another question from Commissioner Theis, the Secretary stated that noise walls are built fairly close to the right-of-way line in most cases. A brief dis- cussion ensued relative to noise walls and the proposed ordinance amendment. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING' CHAPTER 35 REGARDING SETBACKS FROM MAJOR THOROUGHFARES. Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of an ordinance amending Section 35-400 of the City Ordinances regarding setbacks from major thoroughfares. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commis- sioners Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: . none. The motion passed unanimously. ENTRANCE TO ROCKY ROCOCO-IS The Secretary explained to the- Planning Commission that Rocky Rococo's Restaur- ant, a new tenant in Brookdale Shopping Center, wished to undertake minor remodel- ing which included the addition of a 5' x 7' entrance area directly to the outside. 10-11-79 -4- He explained that the cafeteria-styled restaurant has been occupied by a number of restaurant businesses over the years that have not been able to make a go of it. Brookdale has analyzed the situation and thinks that some outside identi- fication and an outside entrance might give the space more identity. He further explained that the only access to the space is currently through the Brookdale Mall and internal walkway areas. Brookdale has agreed to assist Rocky Rococo's with the construction of a new entrance area. He noted that the exist- ing entrance would remain. The Secretary reported that while reviewing this proposal , the matter of handi- capped accessibility of the new entrance was extensively discussed. He explained that the current entrance is accessible to the handicapped, but the new entrance would not be. He noted further that the new entrance would provide Rocky Rococo's with the ability to be open at hours other than that of the entire Brookdale complex and for that time it would not be accessible to the handicapped. He explained that the space has three levels: the serving area that is on the same level as the Brookdale Mall and is accessible to the handicapped; and two eating areas which are on levels above and below the serving area and are not accessibile. He further explained that when Rocky Rococo's sought occupancy permits and did some decorative remodeling they also provided a handicapped eating counter on the service level to accommodate handicapped persons. He noted that the new entrance would provide access to the lower serving level only and, therefore, would not be totally accessible to the handicapped. The Secretary explained the difficulty of providing access to the eating areas which were situated four feet above and four feet below the serving area. He added that the Building Official has inquired about the issue at the State and that the State Building Codes Division does not consider total accessibility to be required in this case because the proposal would not be a major alteration. He added that the Building Codes Division does not feel that a space such as this would have to made totally accessible at all hours because of this minor alteration, and that the alteration would not be contrary to the handicapped accessibility code. The Planning Commission discussed the feasibility of providing access to the hanc'i-capped, calling on the Building Official to provide technical information. The Building Official explained that the initial remodeling plan is minor in scope and that the City cannot, therefore, require total handicapped accessi bility. He explained that the ramp leading to the lower area at the required grades established for handicapped ramping, would be 48 feet long. Such a ramp would take up most of the dining area on the lower level . He added that if the outside entrance were to be made accessible, a 27 foot ramp would be needed on the outside of the restaurant. Moreover, he added, the outside ramping would be useless without ramping on the inside since handicapped patrons could not get food otherwise. The Building Official explained that in addition to the handi- capped counter on the service level , it is the policy of the restaurant to bring tables from the other levels to the main floor should a handicapped patron require more seating. This he considered the most feasible solution. After further discussion, the Planning Commission agreed with the Building Official 's analysis and recommendation and concurred with the recommendation that the entry was only a minor addition not requiring the space be made totally accessible. Since the item was only informational , there was no further action taken on the matter. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW Commissioner Hawes pointed out a number of apparent errors in the text of the Comprehensive Plan on pages 37, 44, 49, 51 and 57. 10-11-79 -5- The Secretary noted these areas for transmission to the Planning Consultant and encouraged the rest of the Commission to review the Comprehensive Plan care- fully and offer corrections at the public hearing. After some additional comments on technical errors in the Plan document, the Secretary stated that the Commission could hold a public hearing on October 25, 1979 and could pass the Plan on to the City Council at that time if it felt satisfied with the Plan. If not satis- fied, it could hold the plan over for another hearing in November. Chairman Pierce stated that he would prefer to review the Plan as extensively as possible. Chairman Pierce noted that the area just south of'694 along Brooklyn Boulevard is designated in the proposed Land Use Plan to be for mid-density residential . He asked whether this designation would make existing uses nonconforming. Com- missioner Theis recommended that only when the land was redeveloped should the Plan recommendations be put in force via a zoning change. The Secretary added that the Plan itself does not require the City to undertake a blanket rezoning of all property proposed for different uses in the Plan upon its adoption. The Planning Assistant commented that if the City adopts the Comprehensive Plan with various Land Use designations, it should be serious about implementing the policy stated in the Plan at an appropriate time in the future. There was a further brief discussion of technical aspects of the Plan. The Secretary again stated that he would make a list of the revisions suggested and pass them on to the Planning Consultant. Commissioner Manson arrived at 10:05 p.m. The Chairman asked Commissioner Manson if she had any comments to make on the Comprehensive Plan. She had no comment. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Erickson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Com- missioners Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson, Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:07 p.m. A i `Axe�_ C airman 10-11-79 -6- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 REGARDING SETBACKS FROM MAJOR THOROUGHFARES t�< THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 35-400. TABLE OF MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. Every use of land within the City of Brooklyn Center shall conform to the following minimum requirements which are applicable to the Land Use District in which such use is contemplated. 10 Yard Setbacks 5 3 5 2 Front Rear Side Interior Side Corner Section 35-400 (2) . Where no more than 3 interior lots have frontage on a "cross street, " and where the corner lots are developed so that one side yard of each corner lot faces the "cross street," the front yard setback of the interior lots may conform to the side yard setbacks of the corner primary structures. [Setbacks along major thoroughfares as designated in Section 35-900 shall in no event be less than 50 feet, measured from the street right-of-way line] . A single family dwelling and permitted accessory structures may be constructed to within fifteen (15) feet of the side corner lot line on a residential corner lot which was of legal record on December 19, 1957, and which does not meet the requirements of this ordinance as to width. Section 35-400 (10) . Setbacks along major thoroughfares as designated .in Section 35-900 shall in all cases eat least 50 feet, measured from the street right-of-way line, except for accessory structures in rear yards or in cases where mitigating circumstances exist, such as noise walls or 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 setback requirements shall apply. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1979. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Published in the Official Newspaper Effective Date 4