Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973 03-01 PCM KrNUTES OF TIT, PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COTfMISSION OF T10 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE, COUNTY OF HENNEP I N AND STATE OF M1N1'E5 0r:'A REG'Ti,AR SESSION C1TY HALL MARCH 1, 1973 i Call to Order The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:05 P.M. Roll Call Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Eogucki, Grosshans, and Scott. Also present: Director of Public Works James Me--ila and Administrative Assistant Blair Tiemere. Approve Minutas: Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by 2-15-73 Commissioner Grosshans to approve the minutes of the February 15, 1973 meeting, noting that Commissioner Grosshans was present at that meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioners Gross, Foreman and Engdahl arrived at 8:15 P.M. Application_ No. 73002 The first item of business was Planning (Marvin Gordon) Commission Application No. 73002 mub- mitted by Marvin Gordon. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant was seeking a special use permit to allow construction of 12 single- family attached dwelling on the parcel located south of F194 and north of 66th Avenue North, from Noble Avenne to approx- imately 400 feet easterly of Lee Avenue North. He explained that the application was presented for preliminary review only, and that the required public hear- ing for the special use pormit vra j re- commended for the March 15th meeting. Chairman Jensen recognized the applicant, and the Secretary proceeded to review the survey and site plans submitted by Mr. Gordon. An extensive discussion ensued. The Secretary explained that the applica- tion was for approval of special use per- mission, as comprehended under Section 35-310 2 (g) of the ordinances, which pro- vides for "Other, noncommercial uses re- quired for the public welfare in an R-1 district, as determined by the City Council". He noted that approximately one yea.r r,c�o, the applicant had requested rezoning for the subject property from P.-1 to R-3, and that request had been denied. -1- 3-1-73 h The Secretary further explained that the proposed development fell within the density requirements of the R-1 district. He stated that w4I,_ile the design and lay- out may be relatively unortl.ouax for dwelling construction in this district, specific variances were neighter re- quested nor required, in the context of a special use. • During further discussion, the following factors were listed as the major concerns of the Commission: 1. Ramifications upon the small parcel lying easterly of the pro- posed project (Lot 1000) . 2. The provision for terming on both the north and south sides of the proposed project; that the pro- posed landscaping be provided not only for aesthetic purposes, b:t also to provide effective sound and site buffering. 3. Possible ramifications of future freeway expansion or upgrading. 4. The status of Noble %v`nue, par- ticularly as it appears on the submitted plans indicating an apparent encroachment upon orchard Lane Park. 5. Ramifications of the relatively unorthodox construction design upon the surrounding neighborhood, and the R-1 district. The Secretary stated that the staff would consult further with the applicant in light of the Commission's concerns and other detail. development cons ider at ions o and would be prepared to comment further at the public hearing. Action to Table Following further discussion, there was Application No. 73002 a motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Gross to table Planning Cornaission Application No. 3002, sub- mitted by Marvin Gordon until the Mar.CII 15th meeting, at which time the public • hearing for the special use permit re- quest would be considered. The notion passed unanimously. Cons.-Weration of There next ensued an extensive discussion proposed Modifications of the proposed modifications of chapter of Chapter 34 34 (Sign ordinance) . The Secretary com- mented that the draft ordinance for—oard- ed to the City Council cenepreheniOied identification signery for a muit.:6-story building which could be located anywhere -2- 3-1-73 on the exterior walls, but was limited to 10/ of the area of those walls. He stated that a distinction was made be- tween ground floor uses, and tenan�.s located elsewhere in the building; this- was refined to distinguish between retail ground floor uses and nonretail commercial uses on the ground floor. • The Secretary stated that the distinc- tion of retail verses nonretail uses, had generated substantial concern by City Council and Commission members. He stated that further analysis had in- dicated there was a general inconsis- tency with other portions of the sign ordinance, in that a C-1 type, nonretail commercial use located in a single story building on a parcel zoned C-1 or C-2, could have a certain amount of signery, yet, if that same use were located on the ground floor of a multi-story office building, specifically one located in a C-2 zone, no signery whatsoever would be permitted, even though a neighboring retail use on that floor could have signery. He stated this seeming inequity was the crux of the concern regarding the standards of the proposed modifica- tions as they related to multi-story office buildings. Chairman Jensen stated that it had been the initial feeling of the sign sub- committee and the Commission as a whole, that only signs identifying the building should be permitted for multi-story office buildings, and that if this were adopted, it would eliminate for the most part, the seeming inequity caused by the discrimination among various uses ih different locations. Commissioner Gross offered comments as to his observations in other communities, and the type of signery permitted for high rise office buildings. Commissioner Foreman noted the prime concern of the sign subcommittee had been that signery be specifically related �o uses rather than generally comprehended by land use districts. FIe stated that since .a multi- story office building was primarily an office use, the basis for permitted signery should be that use and not the individual tenant uses within- the building. Consensus Developed Following further discussion, Chairman on Recommend Niodifica- Jensen polled the Commission and deter-- tion of Chapter 34 mined the consensus that all wall or projecting signery for multi-story office buildings should be for identifi- cation of the building and should not exceed 10/ of the wall space upon which -3- 3-1-73 the sign was erected. The Secretary was directed to amend the proposed inod- ifications of the sign ordinance to re- flect that consensus and forward the proposal. to the City Council. Informal Discussion of in other business, the Secretary noted Use Compatibility with that Mr. Charles Nolan of Nolan Bros. , Mr.. Charles .Nolan general contractors, was present to dis- cuss informally, a development proposal which was in conflict with the zoning ordinance. He explained that the pro- posal was for a "mini" storage facility comprised essentially of several long buildings containing garage-like com- partments and small offices which would be rented to the general public. Ile noted a significant aspect of the proposal was the provision for an apart- ment or single family residence intended as the dwelling for a full time rental manager-caretaker. Fie explained Mr. Nolan had made it apparent that the de- veloper considered the residential unit on the site to be essential to the pro- ject. He commmented further that an application for site and building ap- proval had not been accepted because of the inclusion of the residential unit in the design, in that any effort to construe the ordinance to allow for re- sidential occupancy in a commercial or industrial zone, would not only be il- legal as the laws are constituted, but would also establish a precedent con- trary to the fundamental principals re- garding compatibility of land uses. Ile stated that if residential uses were permitted in commercial or industrial zones, the converse situation could be logically be argued, i.e. proposals to integrate commercial uses into residen- tial zones. He said that Mr. Nolan had suggested the possibility of a variance, and that it was the determination that a variance application to permit such a use was not technically possible. He noted the ordinance specification that the Plan- ning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance, any use that is not per- mitted under the ordinance in the dis- trict where the affected persons land is located. In other words, a variation to permit residency on a nonresidential site would be illegal. The Secretary further commented that two other developers had recently specu- lated as to this type of project, both including an on-site residence, which was deemed vital to the success of the project. -4- 3-1-73 Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Dolan who briefly described the nature of his project and commented that one was nearing completion in Burnsville. He explained that the provision for an on site resident manager was considered a major asset to the proposed develop- ment, representing full time security for the rental spaces which were avail- able to tenants at all times. An ex- tensive discussion ensued and Commission- er Bogucki commented that it seemed other means of providing around-the- clock security were available, which did not involve on site residency in a commercial or industrial zone. Mr. Nolan responded that the merits of having an on site resident manager out- w6ighed the advantages of contracting for other types of management and security services. Chairman Jensen and Commissioner Engdah stated that it appeared to be solely a matter of economics and that the ap- parent conflict with the ordinance could be resolved by the developer with- out physical detriment or hardship to the project. ronoensug Developed It was the consensus of the Commission Relative to Land Use to reaffirm the ordinance and City Compatibility, Re- Policy provisions regarding the prohi- affirini.ng City policy bition of residential uses in non- and Crdinancc Require- residential districts and to acknow- memts. ledge that a variance in this matter was neither technically possible or desirable from a planning policy per- spective. Consideration of Pro- The next item of business was considera- Dosed Freeway Oriented tion of the proposed freeway oriented Business District business district, and the Secretary reviewed the draft proposal, which com prehended the establishment of a special use in the I-1 district. A brief dis- cussion ensued, and Chairman Jensen stated that the matter could best be Appoint Committee analyzed by an ad hoc committee Vaich on Freeway Business could issue a report at the March 15th District meeting. He appointed a committee to be chaired by Commissioner Gross, con- sisting of Commissioners ,rosshans and Scott, to consider the various means and ramifications of the establishment of a freeway oriented business distric-C : and to make a .recommendation at the March 15th meeting. The Secretary noted that a joint meeting with the Commission and Council would be scheduled soon, and that this issue would be a major item on the agenda. Consideration of In other business, the Secretary noted EIome Occupations that the Council had requested the -5- 3-1-73 Commission to evaluate the ordinance provisions for home occupations as well as special home occupations, and to develop pertinent information and a recommendation, which could also be pre- sented at the joint meeting. A brief discussion ensued relative to previous recommendations of the Planning Commission and Chairman Jensen suggested that the item be placed on the study meeting agenda for March 15th. fie also suggested that the Commission consider meeting in special session on Thursday, March 29th to consider those matters which would be discussed at the joint meeting with the City Council. Consensus Developed It was the consensus to defer considera- to Defer Consideration tion of the matter of home occupations of Home Occupations and special home occupations until the March 15th meeting, and to establish a special meeting on March 29th for pur- poses of discussing items proposed for the joint meeting with the City Council. Adjournsaent Motion by Conurlissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Foreman to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously, . The Planning Commission meeting ad- journed at 11:35 P.M. Chairman