Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 11-08 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMISSION OF-,THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION NOVEMBER 8, 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER T e arming Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Hal Pierce at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL - Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki ; Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Superintend- ent of Engineering James Noska, Building Official Will Dahn and Planning Assist- ant Gary Shallcross. - APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 25, 1979 .. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Hawes to approve the minutes of the October 25, 1979 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chair- man -Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting 'against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 79055 (Edwin Kauffmann/Villa a Builders) Fo owing the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request to rezone from Cl (Service/Office) to R3 (Townhouse/Garden Apartments) a tract of land located at the southeast corner of Logan and 58th Avenues North. The Secretary explained that the application was brought before the Planning Commission at its September 13 meeting and that a public hearing was held at that time. He explained that the rezoning application had been tabled at that meeting and referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The Secretary stated that the advisory group met on ' October 15, 1979 and advised the Planning Commission to favorably recommend the rezoning. The Secretary stated that there does not seem to be any conflict with the Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines nor with the present Comprehensive Plan. The only concern that occurs to staff, he said, is the possible negative impact which the Northbrook Shopping Center might have on the new development. He noted that the City has no prerogative to require site improvements at the Shopping Center as a condition of approving the rezoning application. However, he added, since the Shopping Center and the land to be rezoned are owned by the same party, the developer should certainly be encouraged to pursue the matter in his private negotiations for the property. The Secretary emphasized that reducing the impact of the Shopping Center on this development is a valid concern of both the developer and the City. The Secretary concluded his remarks by stating that he had not received a written recommendation from the Neighbor- hood Advisory Group, but had been informed verbally by Louis Sullivan, the Advisory Group Chairman,. that the Group favored the proposal . Commissioner Hawes asked Commissioner Lucht,who had attended the Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting, what the sentiment of the Neighborhood Group had been toward the rezoning. Commissioner Lucht stated that the Neighborhood Group was strongly in favor of the rezoning, but that .concern was expressed that the appearance of the Shopping Center across Logan Avenue from the site should be improved. He noted that some work to improve the Shopping Center had been done. Commissioner Erickson asked how the meeting was attended. 11-8-79 -1- Commissioner Lucht stated that only one resident in the area appeared at the meeting and he spoke in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Hawes commented that the trash enclosure at the Shopping Center is not screened. The Secretary responded that under the City's Zoning Ordinance, it.`should be. Chairman Pierce expressed confidence :that new residents would put pressure on the Shopping Center to improve its appearance and asked whether "no parking" could be designated along that block of Loga-n, Avenue. The Secretary answered that the City could consider such- designation, -but felt that it was not warranted at this time. In response' to a question about curb and gutter along Logan Avenue from Chairman Pierce, the Superintendent of Engineering explained that Logan Avenue is a Minnesota State Aid street and can be improved with State funds. Chairman Pierce suggested that the upgrading of Logan Avenue be accomplished in conjunction with the new development. The Secretary then reviewed the ways in which the proposal meets the Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines. He stated that the proposed townhouse development: 1 . Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it serves as a buffer in accordance with the Plan and that .the Planning Consultant, with respect to the revised Comprehensive Plan, had _a recommended changing the zoning of this property to residential. 2. Is consistent with the R4 zoning to the south, the R5 to the north and single family homes to the east. 3. Is a more appropriate use at this location than a service/office use. 4. Benefits the Brooklyn Center School District which is losing; housing to right-of-way acquisition by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Commissioner Theis took issue with the statement that adding residents and children would help the fiscal situation of the school district. He argued that the Cl zoning would be better from a cost revenue standpoint than the addition of eight townhouse units. He argued that the townhouses, insofar as the school district is concerned, only helped to preserve a district that is too small . A brief discussion ensued relative to the benefits to be derived by the school district from the rezoning. Chairman Pierce asked whether anyone was present to speak on the application. No one spoke relating to the application. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. .79055. (Edwin Kauffmann/Village Builders) Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 79055 submitted by Edwin Kauffmann to rezone Lot 1 , Block 1 , Northbrook Center Addition to R3 from Cl , in that it is consistent with the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines for the following reasons: 1 . The proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed zoning is consistent with and compatible with surrounding land uses. 11-8-79 -2- 3. The subject property can bear fully the development restrict- ions for the proposed zoning districts. 4. The subject property is considered generally unsuited for uses permitted in the Cl zoning district because of its location. 5. The proposed zoning will allow for development of the property in a way which will benefit both the City and the Brooklyn Center School District. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: Commissioner Theis. The motion passed. Commis- sioner Theis stated that he was not opposed to the rezoning as such, but could not vote in favor of the motion with the inclusion of Point No. 5 concerning the benefits to the Brooklyn Center School District. APPLICATION NO 79056 (Edwin Kauffman/Village Builders) The Secretary introduced the next item of business , site and building plan approval for an eight unit townhouse complex at the corner of 58th and Logan Avenues North, the site the Commission had recommended for rezoning under Appli- - cation No. 79055. The property, he pointed out, is located on the east side of Logan Avenue across from the Northbrook Shopping Center and is bounded on the north by 58th Avenue, on the east by single family homes facing Knox Avenue and on the south side by a 75 foot wide private utility easement. He commented that preliminary plans for this development were considered by the Commission* at the September 13, 1979 regular meeting and tabled along with the accompanying rezoning application. The Secretary stated that the proposed plan contemplates four two-unit structures, with each unit having its own private lot. All units will be 24' x 46' with interior lots of 34' x 96' and the two corner lots 29' x 96' . The Secretary noted that the applicant plans to submit a preliminary plat to sub- divide the property and establish a Homeowners Association so the units can be individually sold. The eastern portion of the site would be designated as a common area. The Secretary stated that each structure will be served by two two-car driveways separated by a green area. He stated that the dimensions of the driveway and green area .have not been determined. The Secretary explained that the entire driveway area would be blacktopped from the sidewalk line to the street, it being felt that the open driveway and the boulevard will better handle the turning movements of vehicles entering and leaving and that maint- enance of the' small boulevard islands would be difficult. He commented also that all setback requirements are met. The Secretary explained that the applicant wishes to take advantage of an optional density credit of 500 square feet per tuck-under garage stall as provided under Section 35-400, footnote number 1 c of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Since the plan calls for two tuck=under stalls per unit, he said, the total credit sought is 1 ,000 square feet per unit, which reduces the required land area from 5400 square feet to 4400 square feet per unit. At that rate, the Secretary explained, the 39,052 square foot site can accommodate up to 8.9 units. Without the density credit, he noted, the total number of units allowed w©uld be 7.23. The Secretary recommended that since the density credit is optional , at the discretion of the City Council , the Commission should ack- nowledge that the proposed density of eight is, or is not, warranted in light of the aesthetic benefits obtained from the tuck-under garages and the addi- tional off-street parking it will provide. He pointed out that the plan provides forfour off-street parking stalls per unit and that the requirement under the Zoning Ordinance is only two per unit. 11-8-79 -3- The Secretary briefly reviewed the landscape plan, noting that the applicant has proposed to provide the required screening from the R1 use to the east with a fairly dense row of trees and shrubs. Plantings include Green Ash, Russian Olives, Norway Maples, American Arborvitae, and Pfitzer-Juniper. The Plan also indicates two 6" diameter Green Ash along Logan Avenue as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary stated that the proposed drainage pattern for the site is generally from east to west. He added that the City Engineer has expressed some concern that the higher elevations on the east side of the site may create pockets on some of the residential property to the east. He explained that each unit will have a separate one inch waterline running down to the edge of the property where they will be connected to a single one and one-half inch line coming off the main. He also pointed out that the utility plan indicates separate four inch cast iron pipe sewer lines connected to the lateral in the street. The Secretary concluded by stating that the uncertainty over the location of the monument at the southeast and northeast corners of the property has been resolved. He explained that an error was made in a previous survey which placed. the property line three feet inside of the fences serving the residents to the east along the south side of the site. The east property line has thus been established at just westerly of the fence line serving the residences to the east. In answer to a question from Commissioner Hawes regarding trash disposal, the Secretary admitted the subject had not been discussed at length with the appli- cant. He assumed that each unit would have their own individual trash can* but added that any outside trash disposal facilities would be required to be screened. Commissioner Hawes also asked about sidewalks for the area. The Building Official answered that sidewalk is already in place. Chairman Pierce asked how wide an MSA street is. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that in this case, it was 30 feet. Chairman Pierce asked whether curb and gutter would be installed on such a street. The Superintendent of Engineer- ing answered that curb and gutter is generally provided with a 44 foot wide street. Chairman Pierce asked how many units would be allowed without the density - credit.. The Secretary answered that 7.23 units would be allowed at 5,400 square feet per unit. He explained that the credit would have the effect of reducing the required land area per unit by 1 ,000 square feet per unit to 4,400 square. feet per unit. The Secretary went on to explain that the screen-- ing requirement between R3 and R1 uses calls for either a 4 foot high opaque fence or wall or a Council approved substitute to be provided by the R3 use. He explained that because of the,circumstances on the east side of the site, the applicant prefers to use plantings rather than the four foot high fence. Commissioner Hawes asked whether any water settles on the east side of the site. Building Official Will Dahn responded that there is no water problem. Commissioner Erickson asked whether there was any precedent in denying the density credit. The Secretary answered that he was not aware of any, pointing to the case of DeWitt Enterprises which recently received approval to build eight townhouse units with tuck-under garages on a site that is zoned R5. Chairman Pierce, however, recalled a .case where the credit was denied. Commissioner Erickson expressed concern about the amount of blacktop associated with the 40 foot wide driveway openings.- Chairman Pierce asked what the City Policy is on the width of curb cuts. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that curb cuts are limited to 30 feet in the multiple residential, commercial , and industrial zones, but that no express limit applied to the R1, R2, and R3 zones. - 11-8-79 -4- The Secretary explained that the Planning Commission had the option to recommend revising the plan to show 30 foot wide openings at the street with driveways tapering outward to the two garages; or, to recommend the plan as is which will ensure more green area between the individual driveways. Commissioner Hawes and the Building Official briefly discussed the parking problem on Logan Avenue. The Building Official suggested that the Chuck Wagon be encouraged to tell their patrons to park in the Shopping Center parking lot. Commissioner Theis asked whether the approval of the landscape treatment as screening from the R1 use to the east would weaken the City's ability to require opaque fencing in other cases. The Secretary answered that the provision for a substitute opaque treatment is optional ; has been used in other instances, and should not affect the City's ability to require opaque fencing in other instances. Chairman Pierce noted that an R2 development would not have to screen itself from the single family homes and observed that the landscaping provided on the plan is abundant. Commissioner Theis asked whether the proposed development would fit into the R2 zoning requirements . The Secretary answered that the proposal does not fit the R2 zoning requirements because the R-2 zone requires individual lots to be no less than 75 feet wide. The Secretary also commented that the Homeowners Association would be responsible for maintenance of the site and that the units could be rented if there were no new plat. The Commission then discussed the proposed development with the applicant, Mr. Kauffmann and his representative Mr. Merila. Mr. Kauffmann stated that he expected to get financing for the project from some traditional HUD source such as FHA, GNMA, or FNMA. He stated that most of the customers he has for other units he has built are in their 50's who make large down payments . Mr. Merila stated that although the plan shows three structures with side entries and one structure with an entry out the front, he would prefer to retain the flexibility to build each unit as ordered by the customer and that the mix of units might be different from that shown on the plan. Mr. Merila also stated that the applicant was willing to cut the individual driveways down to 16 feet in width with an 8 foot green area in between. In response to Chairman Pierce's query, the Planning Commission concurred in preferring the 40 foot wide drive- way option. The Building Official commented that a representative of the Northbrook Shop- ping Center mentioned to him recently that he is willing to provide more land- scape treatment on the east side of the Shopping Center if the developer asks for it on behalf of the neighborhood. Mr. Kauffmann stated that he was willing to send a letter requesting such screening. The Secretary recommended that a record of the minutes be sent to the owner in conjunction with such a letter. He stated that such screening or even such a communication about the screening could not be added as a condition of approval of the site and building plans . ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79056 (Edwin Kauffmann/Village Builders) Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 79056 submitted by Edwin Kauffmann for site and building plan approval for eight townhouse units at the southeast corner of Logan and 58th Avenues North subject to the following conditions: 11-8-79 -5- 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval comprehends a total of eight dwelling units' by allowing the minimum land area to be reduced by 500 square feet for each tuck-under garage as comprehended by Section 35-400 1 c of the City Ordinances. 6. Plan approval acknowledges that the landscape treatment on the east side of the property is in harmony with the resi- dential neighborhood, provides sufficient screening of the multiple dwelling area and is an appropriate screening substitute in lieu of a four' foot high opaque fence or wall . Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Hawes, Theis, Manson Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 79063 (Lawrence Rudenick) The Secretary next reviewed Application No. 79063 submitted by Lawrence Rudenick for preliminary plat approval to create three lots (Lots 1 , 2 and 3, Block 1 , Rudenick Maahs Addition) on- the land presently described as Lots 7 and 8, Halek's Addition, commonly known as 6900 and 6906 Oliver Avenue North. The Secretary pointed out that the existing lots are each roughly 75' x 250' facing Oliver Avenue. The preliminary plat, he explained, proposes to create a third lot (Lot 2, Rudenick Maahs Addition) roughly 75' x 146 ' , facing 69th Avenue North, a major thoroughfare as defined by Section 35-900 of the Zoning Ordinance. All the new lots, he said, would meet the area standards for single family, interior and corner lots. He noted, however, that the presently substandard corner lot at 6900 Oliver Avenue North would continue to be substandard as to width at 75 feet. He added that as-built surveys show that no setback violations occur with the creation of the new lot, but that existing structures at 6900 Oliver Avenue North are located slightly less thanathe normal side corner setback of 25 feet and far less than the 50 foot setback required from major thoroughfares. The Secretary explained that the major thoroughfare setback requirement was in- stituted in 1968 and that the house was built in 1952. The Secretary stated that a complicating factor in the creation of the plat is the fact that Hennepin County is considering widening 69th Avenue from a 66 foot right-of-way to an 80 foot right-of-way, picking up 7 feet from each side. In other instances of replatting along 69th Avenue, where it has been possible, the City has asked for, and received, the additional seven feet of right-of-way by dedication. However, in the case of 6900 Oliver Avenue, the dedication of an additional seven feet of right-of-way would cause substantial problems by creating an even more substandard corner lot and further setback encroachments. 11-8-79 -6- The Secretary pointed out that the owner would be left with a 68 foot wide corner lot and structures set back roughly 15 feet from major thoroughfare right-of-way. The Secretary stated that the creation of such a substandard lot with extremely deficient setbacks should 'not be approved. because the application of current setbacks would render the property unbuildable. The Secretary went on to explain, however, that in the case of the newly created lot to the east, there appears to be no substantial damage caused by the dedi- cation of seven additional feet for right-of-way purposes . He therefore recom- mended that a condition of approving the plat be a change in the survey document showing the seven feet dedication along 69th Avenue from Lot 2, but not from Lot 3. He added that although the proposed plat leaves a substandard corner lot in tact, there is no need for a variance since (as with the Shimshock resubdivision) this is an existing condition which cannot be mitigated by replatting and the creation of the new lot does not make 6900 Oliver Avenue substandard as to area or any other aspect. The Secretary pointed out that the new plat relocates an existing 10 foot utility easement along the east 100 feet of the old property line separating 6900 and 6906 Oliver Avenue North. The new plat places the easement along the west property line of Lot 2 (the new lot) for a distance of 81 .4 feet from the present right-of-way line. He explained that the easement is presently used by Northern States Power and that the power lines will be relocated. He added that there are no City or other public utilities to be relocated. In response to a question from Commissioner Hawes, the Secretary stated that the County prefers that the City pick up the seven feet of right-of-way dedic- ation along the entire distance of the plat. Commissioner Theis commented that if the City does not pick up the land by dedication, it will require that the County condemn the land. Commissioner Lucht pointed out that if the County condemns the property, the lot would still wind up being unbuildable. The Secretary acknowledged these points , but responded that if the County were forced to condemn the property, they would have to buy the entire lot on the corner if it left it in an unbuildable condition. He explained that the City has taken land for right-of-way purposes by dedication only in cases where it has not caused any real damage. The Secretary commented that the 50 foot setback from 69th Avenue North would be applied to the new lot and would allow enough space between the house and the street for a turn-around which would be helpful in entering major thoroughfare traffic . The Superintendent of Engineering showed the Planning Commission a profile of the right-of-way along 69th Avenue North and noted that the County intends to take seven feet from each side of the roadway. He also noted that the traffic from Shingle Creek Parkway to Brooklyn Boulevard along 69th Avenue is fairly heavy, but that east of Shingle Creek Parkway traffic is lighter. A brief discussion ensued concerning regional traffic patterns with the addition of a north crosstown expressway. Commissioner Manson asked whether the lot to the east has been developed. The Secretary answered that it was built on in 1968. Chairman Pierce observed that the 50 foot setback revision from a major thoroughfare is intended to benefit the resident by separating him from a busy street. The Secretary commented that in this case, the new lot is not damaged by the taking, but that the existing lot at 6900 Oliver Avenue North would be damaged by making it essentially unbuildable with the application of the 50 foot setback. Commissioner Theis noted that the approval of the plat does not create any problems for compliance with City Ordinances and yet does not preempt a condemnation by the County. In response to a question by Com- missioner Erickson, the Superintendent of Engineering explained that if the road were not widened, the vacation proceedings to deed the land back to the original property would be initiated by the City. 11-8-79 -7- PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pierce then opened the public hearing. Seeing no one present to comment on the plat, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson, .Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79063 (Lawrence Rudenick) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to recommend approval of Application No. 79063 submitted by Lawrence Rudenick for preliminary plat approval to create Lots 1 , 2 and 3 of Rudenick Maahs Addition out of the property presently described as Lots 7 and 8, Halek's Addition subject to the following conditions: 1 . The final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is, subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The plat shall be amended to show an additional dedication from Lot 2 of seven feet for right-of-way purposes along 69th Avenue North prior to final plat approval . 4. The 10 foot wide utility easement running through the middle of Lot 2 shall be formerly vacated prior to final plat approval . The owner(s) of Lot 2 shall be responsible for all reasonable costs associated with relocation of existing utilities due to the vacation of said utility easement. 5. The final plat shall be approved prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed Lot 2. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:28 p.m. and resumed at 10:02 p.m. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS APPLICATION NO. 79066 (Jay Joyner/Darrell Farr Development Corporation) Following the recess, the Secretary introduced the last item of business, Application No. 79066 submitted by Jay Joyner for Darrell Farr Development Corporation. He stated that the applicant is appealing a ruling by the Building Official and the Director of Planning and Inspection regarding the interpretation of the City Sign Ordinance, particularly, Section 34-140, 2,' k regarding real estate signs. The Secretary noted that Sign Ordinance appeals are provided for in Section 34-170, "in order to secure the relief where it is alleged that an administrative officer of the City has committed an error in interpretation or judgment in issuing an order or making a determination." 11-8-79 -8- The Secretary stated that the applicant has submitted a written appeal in which it is pointed out that the Darrell Farr Corporation is in the process of con- verting the Beach Apartments into condominiums and that a substantial amount of work is necessary to improve the property so that they are attractive to indivi- dual purchasers. The appeal , he said, contends that because there is a substantial amount of new work and because the units are being offered for sale for the first time, the conversion should be considered a "new residential project development" within the meaning of Section 34-140, 2, k (2) and, there- fore, entitled to the temporary signery provided for by that section of the ordinance. The Secretary explained that the interpretation of staff is that The Beach is in the process of selling dwelling units in buildings containing two or more units as comprehended by Section 34-140, 2, k (3) and is, therefore, entitled to the signery comprehended by that section of the ordinance. He went on to state that the Building Official 's interpretation is based on several factors including: 1 . The conversion is not considered a new residential project development because the work referred to by the applicant is not considered substantial , but rather "cosmetic" internal modificiations, most of which do not require building permits . 2. The conversion process does not require site and building plan review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council because no major site work alterations were comprehended. 3. When reviewing the preliminary plat for the conversion, the State Building Codes Division informed the City that conversions to condominiums do not constitute a change which would require bringing the subject building into compliance with current building codes that were not in effect at the time the building was originally constructed. The Building Official , therefore, did not consider the building to be "new" in terms of current Building Code requirements. 4. The conversion process involves a change of occupants based on unit ownership, not the initial occupancy of the premises which Section 34-140, 2, k (2) , appears to recognize. 5. Section 34-140, 2, k (2) also refers to the issuance of the building permit for determining the time period for the temporary sign which also seems to imply a newly constructed project development. 6. A broad interpretation of Section 34-140, 2, k (2) , as the as the appellant proposes, could leave open the possibility that other changes or conversions involving residential projects, or even commercial or industrial projects, such as change of ownership, cosmetic or minor alterations, a new name or marketing approach, or any combination of the above might entitle that project to the same signery contained in this section of the ordinance. 7. Finally, there seems to be no conflict in treating the condominium conversion process as an example of the activity contemplated by Section 34-140, 2, k (3) . 11-8-79 -9- The Secretary also pointed out that The Beach is entitled to other signery such as identification signery and directional signery in accordance with the ordinance. He noted that The Beach can have a 36 square foot freestanding identification sign plus one 10 square foot wall identification sign per build- ing in addition to any necessary directional signs . He concluded by urging the Planning Commission to uphold the interpretation of the Building Official . Chairman Pierce then called on the applicant to speak to the issue. Mr. Joyner stated that Darrell Farr Development Corporation wants a sign that can be seen from Highway 100. He stated that under a broad interpretation of the term "new residential project this first offering of condominiums qualifies as such. He maintained that under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, his client is entitled to equal treatment with other new developments. He compared the sale of The Beach Apartments for condominiums for the first time with the sale of -as few as six residential lots involving no construction which, under Section 34-140, 2, k (2) , would be entitled to the promotional signery sought by Darrell Farr. He also stated that he considered Section 34-140, 2, k (3) , to apply to the resale, not the initial sale, of residential , commercial or industrial units. Chairman Pierce asked what signs The Beach Apartments presently has. Mr. Foy, also representing Darrell Farr and the person in charge of marketing The Beach Condominiums, answered that the sign in question simply adds the words "for sale" to a previous sign stating"The Beach Condominiums." Chairman Pierce asked where the sign would be located. Mr. Foy explained that it would be placed at a location where it could be seen from the Highway 100 and Indiana Avenue intersection. He also stated that he considered the project to be "substantial " since it involved the expenditure of over $300,000.00 for re- modeling. Chairman Pierce then asked how the sale of the units was progressing. Mr. Foy responded that a number of the apartments had been sold. He said that when the previous sign was still up, approximately 60% of the inquiries re- ceived about the condominiums mentioned that they had seen and responded to the sign. As to the sign that is remaining, he said, only about 1% now say they responded to the sign. In response to another question from Chairman Pierce, Mr. Foy stated that he hoped to have a closing date sometime between December 1 and February 1 . He attributed a slow down in recent sales to the rise in interest rates and also because of the removal of the sign. Chairman Pierce acknowledged that the situation of The Beach Apartments is probably unique. He expressed his feeling that Subsection k, 2 is probably too liberal to be applied in this case, but that k, 3 seems to be too re- strictive. He suggested that an amendment to the Sign Ordinance might be needed. Commissioner Hawes commented that he did not feel that a $300,000.00 remodeling job should be considered substantial in light of a 5.7 million dollar resi- dential project. Commissioner Theis commented that the State Building Code Division is not requiring that buildings be brought up to code. Commissioner Lucht reflected that he could not see the need to change the Sign Ordinance and added that he did not believe people who are interested in buying condominiums go looking for signs. Commissioner Erickson stated that the time to take advantage of Section k, 2 was when The Beach was originally built, not now. Chairman Pierce concurred stating that he considered Section k, 2 to be too liberal for the situation at hand. 11-9-79 -10 Mr. Foy suggested a compromise of allowing a smaller sign for nine months . The Secretary interjected stating that the issue is the appeal from the interpretation of the Sign Ordinance, not negotiating a compromise that is not spelled out in the ordinance. He pointed out that the Sign Ordinance allows for a 36 square foot identification sign and that much of the traffic on Highway 100 is repeat traffic. He suggested that perhaps the market to be reached by the sign has already been reached. He stated again that he did not consider this a new residential project. Mr. Joyner disagreed with the Secretary stating that he considered the con- version a new opportunity for sale. He noted that the sale of six residential lots does not have to involve any construction and that the sale of the condo- minium units is a sale of "lots," so to speak. The Secretary countered that Subsection k, 3 provides for the sale of "dwelling units in buildings containing two or more units . " This, . he said, appears to cover the sale of condominium units . Mr. Joyner responded that the sale of condominiums at The Beach is a new offering of those units as opposed to a continual offering. Commissioner Theis offered the example of a commercial operation in a single building making minor alterations amounting to ten percent of the value of the building and seeking a new occupant and asked the Secretary whether he con- sidered this to be a comparable situation. The Secretary answered that he did. Chairman Pierce then discussed the ordinance with the Building Official . Chair- man Pierce noted that Subsection k, 3 speaks of "two or more units" while k, 2 speaks of "six dwelling units . " He suggested that perhaps Subsection k, 2 is for larger sales . The Building Official answered that he considered that the ordinance covers all situations although perhaps not according to people's wishes . Chairman Pierce stated that the signs described in Subsection k, 3 appears to be a permanent sign (thereby indicating provision for ongoing sales) . The Building Official answered that all real estate signs are temporary. Com- missioner Hawes cautioned that the decision of the Planning Commission would set a precedent. Chairman Pierce stated that he did not feel the present ordinance covers the situation of converting from a rental to a "owner-occupied" .situation. The Building Official compared the present situation with the conversion of a rental townhouse project to owner-occupied. Chairman Pierce stated that he considered the situation to be different if people sell individual units. The subject of a temporary banner to advertise the condominium conversion was then raised. The Secretary explained that the permit allowing the banner was issued in error. The Building Official added that Administrative Land Use Permits are to be used only for commercial promotions and not residential . Chairman Pierce stated that he felt there was a need for some kind of Grand Opening sign. The Secretary suggested that the applicant make use of the 36 square foot identification sign entitled to him by the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Joyner stated that potential customers will be looking for the logo they have seen in the literature about The Beach, and they will , therefore, not recognize a directional sign that does not make use of that promotional device. Commissioner Erickson stated that he agreed with the Building Official that the conversion process is a new utilization of an existing facility. Chairman Pierce concurred saying that although the present ordinance may not be perfect, the interpretation of it is correct. He added, however, that perhaps a temporary permit for a different sign is warranted. 11-9-79 -11- ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79066 (Darrell Farr Development Corporation).. ' Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend denial of Application No. 79066 submitted by Darrell Farr Development Corporation and uphold the Building Official 's interpretation of Section 34-140, 2, k of the Sign Ordinance regarding real estate signs for The Beach Condominium complex on the basis of the seven factors outlined as a basis for. this interpretation. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. After the vote, Commissioner Theis stated that he felt a gap did exist between the two subsections of the Sign Ordinance and that some middle ground should be found for allowing a temporary Grand Opening sign. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Joint Meeting with the City Council to Discuss the Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary informed the Commission that the City Council had decided at its last regular meeting that it would tentatively set December 10, 1979 as the date for the joint meeting with the Planning Commission to review recommend- ations on the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Hawes stated that he had a conflict with that date. The Commission then discussed the points made at the last Planning Commission meeting. The Secretary stated that the Police Department was reviewing the number of accidents over the past few years in the area by the car dealership at 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard and that a report will be prepared. With regard to the addressing problem between 7000 Quail Circle and 7000 Quail Avenue North, the Secretary. stated that the cure might be worse than the problem since many personal means of identification would have to be changed as a result. Commissioner Theis stated that he would like more information on the need for expanding the retail node at 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that no changes have been made as yet in the recommendation for land uses along Brooklyn Boulevard. Commissioner Theis stated he was having trouble with the piecemeal approach to changing uses along the Boulevard. The Secretary stated that the increased lot width and the normal criteria of how a development affects a surrounding neighborhood would always be vehicles for controlling development on the Boulevard in a direction that would be most beneficial . The Secretary briefly discussed with Commissioner Hawes the ways of dealing with houses left between two large new commercial developments on the Boulevard. b. Replanting of Trees Taken from the Highway Right-of-way. The Administrative Assistant explained to the Planning Commission that he had raised the issue of replanting trees from highway right-of-way with the Director of Public Works and the Director of Parks and Recreation. It was determined in that discussion that trees greater than four or five inches in diameter are not economically feasible to relocate, partly because the equip- ment is not adequate to relocate trees any larger than this with any assurance of viability. The Director of Parks and Recreation made a review of the right- of-way area and found no trees of a size that could be removed feasibly that also fit into the landscape plan for Central Park. 11-8-79 -12- Commissioner Theis asked whether factored into the figures on the cost of tree relocation was a 50% reimbursement from the State which makes relocated trees much cheaper. The Superintendent of Engineering stated that trees that have been in the ground for some years are different than trees grown in a nursery, that they are less likely to be viable after replanting. ADJOURNMENT Motion Ey Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Hawes to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Com- missioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes , Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11 :29 p.m. C ai Man 11-8-79 -13- 1 1