Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 03-23 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 March 23, 1978 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl . Roll Call : Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Jacobson• and Hawes. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. Approve Minutes: Chairman Engdahl stated approval ,of the minutes of the March 9, 1978 meeting would be deferred 'until later in the meeting. Application No. 78018 Chairman Engdahl stated that consideration of Appli (William Bell ) cation No. 78018 submitted by William Bell would be deferred until later in the meeting since the applicant was not present. -April Meeting Schedule The Secretary stated that only one application was scheduled for the April 6, 1978 meeting-, and recom- mended that April 6th be a study meeting and April 27th be designated as a regular meeting. Following a brief discussion it was the consensus of the Commis- sion to schedule the April regular meeting for April 27 and to designate the April 6 meeting as a study meeting. The Secretary briefly reviewed several preliminary proposals which were anticipated to be on the next regular meeting. Crystal Airport Zoning The Secretary next briefed the Commission on the and Planning status of the Crystal Airport Zoning and Planning matters. He stated a law had been approved which re- solves the problem of the hazard zones. He continued that the legislature directed that the State Aero- nautics Regulations be revised. He stated that single family homes are not considered hazards to •the oper- ation of the airport, and that anything which would be declared a hazard would have to be clearly shown to be so. He continued that the City had received an official invitation from the Metropolitan Airports Commission to join with the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Cities of Crystal , Brooklyn- Park and New Hope to form a Joint Airport Zoning Board. He stated that the City Council would make appointments to the Zoning Board by resolution. A brief discussion ensued relative to the proposed phasing out of the Crystal Airport. Commissioner Jacobson inquired whether the other communities af- fected by the airport agree that the airport should be phased out. The Secretary replied that the Cities of Crystal and Brooklyn Center had both challenged their System Statements to the effect that the state- ments should include a program of phasing out of the airport. _1_ 3-23-78 {: The Secretary briefly reviewed the status of the Comprehensive and Critic?? Comprehensive and Critical Planning. He explained Area Planning that, since the City already has a Comprehensive Plan which was completed in the 1960's, the major issues to be addressed in the current Comprehensive Plan were environmental concerns and housing and redevelopment concerns. He stated that the key role of the Planning Commission in Comprehensive Planning was to coordinate the public input through public hearings which is re- quired by the Land Planning Act. He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan is first reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, then presented to neighbor- ing communities for their responses to the plan, then sent to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval , and finally, brought before the City Council for approval and adoption. The City Engineer briefly reviewed the steps for hiring a Planning Consultant. A discussion ensued relative to the work program. The Secretary stated that the Plan- ning Commission would be given copies of a consolidated work program in the near future. The Commission discussed the role of the Neighborhood Neighborhood Groups Advisory Groups in the Comprehensive Planning. The Secretary suggested that study questions be prepared for the Neighborhood Groups as a framework for the group to use in reviewing the Neighborhoods. It was the consensus of the Commission that this format would provide consistency in the review of the different Neighborhoods. The Planning Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and Recess resumed at 9:05 p.m. Commissioner Sazama arrived at 9:05 p.m. Commissioner Sazama Arrives The next item of consideration was Application No. Application No. 78018 78018 submitted by William Bell of Assurance Glass (William Bell) Company. The Secretary introduced the application, stating the applicant . sought site and parking plan approval of a proposal to upgrade the commercial property located at 5001 Drew Avenue North. He con- tinued that the item had been considered by the Commission at its last meeting and had been tabled to allow time for the staff to contact the R-1 property owner to the north regarding the screen fencing, and for the applicant to submit revised site plans. Commissioner Pierce arrived at 9:10 p.m. Commissioner Pierce Arrives The Secretary showed slides of the property and the neighboring areas. He pointed out the fence erected by the R-1 property owner to the north along his property line. He stated that this opaque fence, combined with the dense shrubbery on the applicant's side of the property line, created an effective screen- ing of the R-1 property from the commercial property. He stated the ordinance requires a 35 ft. greenstrip where C-2 property borders R-1 property, and that this greenstrip contain an 8 ft. high opaque fence or wall . He stated that, since it is the intent of the ordinance to screen a•n R-1 property from commercial activity, and since the existing fence performs that function, the applicant requested that a new screen -fence in the 35 ft. greenstrip area not be required; and a written agreement with the City, that that fence will be erected if anything should happen to the existing fence, would be appropriate. 3-23-78 -2- The Secretary informed the Commission that the property owner of 5013 Drew Avenue North had been con-- tacted. regarding the screen fencing. He stated that they had no objection to deferring installation of a fence on the applicant's property, and had indicated they were pleased with the proposed improvements to the site. Commissioner Hawes inquired whether greenstrips were included on the City boulevard. The Secretary re- sponded that the ordinance requires a 15 ft. green- strip on the property and maintenance of the boulevard as a greenstrip. Commissioner Pierce pointed out that a fence was indicated on the plans along the west property line in front of the warehouse building and inquired whether additional fencing would be required behind the building. The Secretary responded that the fencing in front of the building was required by the ordinance to screen the six open parking spaces . He continued that the applicant had indicated only two parking spaces to the rear of the building, and that screen fencing was not required. He added that the applicant had indicated those spaces may not be necessary for his use, and thus would not be installed. The Commission reviewed the site plans, and the City Engineer pointed out that the plans did not accurately represent the boulevard greenstrip. The Secretary stated that sod a°nd underground irrigation system in the boulevard area should be included in the condition of approval . A discussion ensued relative to the width of the City boulevard and the location of the property line. Chairman Engdahl pointed out that installation of the required 15 ft. greenstrip would mean the removal of approximately 10 ft. of concrete. The Secretary re- sponded the applicant is aware that concrete will have to be removed in order to install the greenstrip and to remove the underground gasoline storage tanks. - In response to a question by Commissioner Hawes, the Secretary stated that the applicant had indicated he probably would not use all of the parking spaces in- dicated on the site plan, but had shown that the total number of parking spaces required for the size of the building can be provided on the site. A discussion ensued relative to the landscaping in- dicated on the plan. It was the consensus of the Commission to require four 22 to 3 inch diameter long- lived hardwood trees. Chairman Engdahl questioned whether a fence should be required along the west property line behind the accessory building. The Secretary stated that the ordinance does not require a fence in that area, but that the Planning Commission can require it as a condition of approval . Commis- sioner Pierce suggested that the fence should be in- stalled if the area is used for parking or storage. Recommend Approval of Following further discussion there was a motion by Application No. 78018 Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki (William Bell ) to recommend approval of Application No. 78018 sub- mitted by William Bell subject to the following conditions: 1 . Site grading, drainage, and curbing plans are subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. Existing underground fuel storage tanks shall be removed as directed by the Building and Fire Officials. f -3- 3-23-78 n 3. Performance Agreement and supporting financiai guarantee (in an amount to be determined by a the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. The property owner shall execute an agreement, as approved by the City, acknowledging the ordinance requirement for an 8 ft. opaque fence within the required greenstrip to provide screening of the use from the single family residential property to the north; and said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property. 5. Installation of sodding and an underground irrigation system of the boulevard shall be included on the site plan. 6. Four 22 to 3 inch long-lived hardwood trees shall be incorporated into the site plan. 7. If the area north of the accessory building used for parking or storage, it shall be fenced to screen the neighboring residential property. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Sazama seconded by Commissioner Approve Minutes +_ Hawes to approve the minutes of the March 9, 1978 meeting March 9, 1978 as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Engdahl , Jacobson, Malecki , Hawes, and Sazama. Not voting: Commissioner Pierce since he was not present at that meeting. The next item of consideration was review of minor re- Application No. 77030 visions to the site plan approved under Application No. (Cepco, Inc.) 77030 submitted by Cepco, Inc. for a townhouse project known as Ewing Square located between 62nd and 63rd Avenues North, between France Avenue and Ewing Lane. The Secretary stated that the project was to be financed with State Section 8 funds. He explained that when the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency reviewed the plans which had been approved by the City, certain revisions were required. He stated that these revisions included the addition of full basements, garages, and concrete patio slabs. He explained that to accommodate these required revisions, the applicant had made-some changes,on the site plan including the reduction of the patio area screening, changes in the sidewalks and the elimination of a 4 ft. fence located on the France Avenue side of the open parking areas. A brief discussion ensued relative to the maintenance of the mulch in the patio areas. Chairman Engdahl and Com- missioner Pierce expressed their concern that the mulch be contained. The Secretary reviewed proposed .amendments developed by the applicant with City staff, relative to the design of the patios and the privacy screening. It was the consensus of the Commission that the revisions were within the intent of the original approval of the application, provided: the design of the concrete patio slabs and of the screening of the patio areas are amended as proposed. the open parking areas are effectively scr.eened from neighboring residential properties to the west, per ordinance requirements, using a combination of berming and fencing. The Commission briefly discussed the different approaches Planning Consultant to be taken in hiring a Planning Consultant. Commissioner Pierce suggested that consultants be used to look at specific problem areas. Chairman Engdahl agreed, stating that since Brooklyn. Center already had a Comprehensive Plan, e` favored hiring one or more consultants . to 'focust: 'different "target" areas. 3-23-78 -4- Canopies and Carports The!Commission next reviewed the issues raised under Application No. 77064 submitted by Gene Hamilton relative to the need for definitions in the ordinance for canopies, carports and awnings. The Commission reviewed slides of canopies, ,carports and awnings . There was a general consensus that an awning was a covering of a window or door attached to the building without vertical supports; that a canopy was a cover- ing usually of a walkway, attached to the building and supported from the ground by vertical support for the purpose of protecting a pedestrian; and that carports are similar coverings used to protect vehicles. Q A discussion ensued relative to 'the definition of a "carport." The Secretary suggested that perhaps there should be a double definition, one for carports within the ordinance setback requirements and one for car- prots in front yards. He continued that the Commission had indicated last December that open-sided carports were acceptable in the front yard. He stated the ' Building Official had indicated that there could be a policing problem with enforcing requirement for car- ports to be open-sided. Chairman Engdahl suggested language which would pro- hibit the violation of the front setback by any structure other than for the purpose of covering a wal way. Commissioner Hawes agreed with Chairman Eng ahl that "carports" should not be permitted to encroach in the front setback. Commissioner Pierce commented that it was possible that a carport could be a substantial structure, for example, an extension of the house roof line. He stated that if carports were to be allowed as encroachments in the front yard, they should be clearly limited as to design and type of building materials. Commissioner Hawes agreed, stating that if the carport were to be en- closed on any side, the materials should be com- pat ble with the exterior of the dwelling. The Sec etary stated that definitions and model ordinance ame dments would be brought to the Planning Commission for review at its next study meeting: Trash Disposal Containers The next item of consideration was review of the possibility of allowing trash disposal containers with rental advertising space to be placed on public and/or private property. The Secretary explained the nature of the containers and noted that there were two considerations : 1 ) whether the containers them- selves, exclusive of signery, could be permitted on public and private property; and, 2) whether the si very could be permitted. He stated that under f the present ordinance, the containers would represent both off-premise advertising and freestanding signery, It was the consensus of the Commission that there would be no objection to locating the containers on public and private property, exclusive of signery. A 11iscussion ensued relative to similarity between tM trash disposal containers with signs, and the bus be ches which are licensed by the City. The Commis- belches n also reviewed an agreement between the City of Fridley with the firm who owns the trash containers. The Commission agreed to hear a presentation made by the firm at their next meeting. The Secretary stated a sample ordinance would be prepared using the Fridley agreement and the City bus bench ordinance and would be presented for the Commission's review at the next meeting. _5- 3-23-78 r in other business the Planning Commission discussed Other business whether it would entertain a presentation by a sign industry source relative to innovations in urban signery. The consensus of the Commission was that since no major changes in the Sign Ordinance were necessary, the presentation would not be warranted. Motion by Commissioner Sazama seconded by Commissioner Adjournment Malecki to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:15 P.M. x w airman t k/ 3-23-78 -6-