Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973 02-15 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 15, 1973 CITY HALL .Call to Order The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Robert Jensen. Roll Call Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Foreman, Scott, Gross, and Grosshans. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila and Administrative Assistant Blair Tremere. Approval of Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded 2-1-73 by Commissioner Scott to approve the minutes of the February 1, 1973 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 73001 The first item of business was continua- (continued) tion of the February 1st hearing of Application No. 73001 submitted by Richard Johnson. The Secretary presented a summary of the previous hearing, ex- plaining that the applicant was seeking special use permission to operate a vacuum cleaner repair service at 6421 Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that since the February 1st meeting, certain information had come to the attention of the City, which possibly had bearing upon the Commission's recommended disposition of the request. He explained that the information was in the form of a flier which had been posted in several apartment complexes throughout the City, advertising among other things, vacuum cleaner repair and the retail sales of accessories and re- built machines. He noted the advertise- ments directed potential customers to the applicant's present address, 6336 Scott Avenue North, and noted a phone number which was that of the applicant. He explained that the advertisements were brought to the attention of the Commission primarily as they related to the hearing on the proposed special use permit at the Brooklyn Boulevard address, since much of the public hearing and testimony given had centered around the applicant's present experience. Chairman Jensen then recognized the applicant, who explained that the adver- tisements had been printed and distribut- ed prior to the February lst Planning -1- 2-15-73 Commission hearing. He stater that his brother, who would be the operator of the proposed service at 6421 Brooklyn Boulevard, had proceeded to distribute the advertisements in an attempt to determine the public response or demand for such a service. Mr. Johnson then produced receipts indicating that the fliers had been printed in late January, 1973. • The applicant further stated that he had not been aware until the Planning Com- mission meeting that retail sales were prohibited in the residential districts. The Secretary responded that extensive discussion had been held with the appli- cant outlining the need for and require- ments of ordinance provisions relating to special home occupations in the re- sidential districts. The Secretary further explained that the applicant had initially described the request as being for a small applicance repair service, not a vacuum cleaner repair activity, which would indicate that retail sales of merchandise could be involved. Chairman Jensen reiterated the Com- mission's action, vhich was recommended approval subject to certain conditions including the prohibition of any retail sales. The applicant stated that ha recognized this, and that if granted the special use permit, there would be no retail sales on the premises. An exten- sive discussion ensued and the applicant further explained that sales activity might be realized only in the context that vacuum cleaners could be taken to a potential customer's home and demon- str .ted. He stated that this was his business at the present time in that he worked out of his home, taking machines with him to be demonstrated and sold on the premises of potential customers. Commissioner Foreman recalled that ex- tensive discussion had centered around the applicant's claim that no comparable service existed in Brooklyn Center at the present time. He asked the applicant to further clarify that statement in light of the claim of the advertisement that such a service existed at the applicant's residence. Mr. Johnson restated that the intent of the advertisement was merely to "feel out" the public as to the need for such a service and thus provide a basis upon which request for a special use permit could be made. Commissioner Foreman responded that in any case, the advertisement did not convey that message to the general public and quite ex- plicitly referred to outright sales of reconditioned machines. -2- 2-15-73 Chairman Jensen reiterated the City's planning policy discouraging the ex- pansion of commercial uses along Brooklyn Boulevard as well as the ordinance provisions prohibiting retail sales in residential districts. He noted the recommended condition that no retail sales would be permitted on the site and that if such activity were de- tected4 it would be grounds for revoking • the permit. In further discussion, the applicant stated that he intended to advertise the fact that reconditioned machines were available, and that the demonstration and sales of such machines would be on the premises of potential customers. He also noted that at the present time, there were many persons involved with cosmetics sales in the City who conduct- ed businesses in a similar manner from their homes. Commissioner Bogucki noted his previous conunents as to the apparent value placed by the applicant upon the Brooklyn Boulevard location and he stated that it seemed the evidence indicated the appli- cant was primarily interested in estab- lishing the site as a commercial retail outlet for vacuum cleaners. He further stated that the ramifications of com- prehensive planning, particularly the principals discouraging expansion of commercial uses along Brooklyn Boulevard, did not appear to be clear to the appli- cant. Mr. Johnson responded that he was fully aware of the City's concern regard- ing the intensity of various uses through- out the City. Commissioner Grosshans asked the appli- cant whether he was fully aware that if the residential use of the subject property ceased, the special use would also cease. The applicant responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Gross in- quired whether certain conditions could be stipulated to control advertising, and in ensuing discussion, it was deter- mined that conditions should relate only to the use itself. The applicant was in- formed that advertising could be con- sidered an indicator of the specific activity taking place on the site at any given time. Reaffirm prior Following further discussion it was the recommendation for consensus of the Commission to reaffirm No. 73001 the February 1, 1973 recommendation for approval of Application No. 73001 sub- ject to the stipulated conditions. -3- 2-15-73 Continued The next item of business was continued Discussion on discussion of the proposed modifications Proposed Changes of the sign ordinance. The Secretary of Chapter 34 explained that the Council had discussed the proposed changes and had remanded the matter to the Commission in light of questions arising about the signery pro- visions for ground floor uses of multi- story office buildings in the C-2 District. • The Secretary further commented that the basic issue was a clarification of the reasons for stipulating that ground floor retail uses could have certain signery, whereas non-retail uses on the ground floor could not. He rioted the apparent inconsistency evidenced by a situation wherein an office-type use located in a single story structure could have a certain amount of signery, whereas the sane use located on the ground floor of a multi-story building could not. The Secretary then dis- tributed letters addressed to the City Council from Mr. Lawrence P. Marofsky regarding the proposed modifications. An extensive discussion ensued and Chairman Jensen stated that it appeared the basis of the argument, which had been presented on behalf of those feel- ing all ground floor uses in a multi- story building should have signery, was that ground floor uses paid a premium rent in order to occupy that space. He stated he did not feel equating the rental value with the amount of signery was a valid consideration. Commissioner Scott further commented that the sign subcommittee had deliberately inserted the word "retail" as a control measure wherein ground floor retail uses, per- mitted in the C-2 Districts, were dis- tinguished from non-retail uses. She further commented that the subcommittee had felt a retail use verses a non- retail use merited certain consideration regarding permitted signery. She stated the needs were different and the assump- tion had been that office type uses in a multi-story office building would identi- fy with that building. Commissioner Gross stated that his con- cern centered around the type of use versus the zoning district and he stated that office-type uses differed from re- tail uses regardless of the geographic district in which they were located. He further stated that since the City allowed for certain signery for C-2 type uses, then that distinction could be carried forth regardless of the proximity of non C-2 uses. -4- 2-15-73 Commissioner Gross left the table at 8:50 P.M. Commissioner Foreman commented that it appeared the entire issue centered around the concern of the subcommittee and the Commission that signery for multi-story office buildings should be controlled. He stated that one of the basic assumptions of the subcommittee had been that office type uses should • identify with the building and that any signery on the building should identify the office structure. He stated that possibly, further consideration should be given to permitting only signery which identified the building, not allowing for any individual tenant signery including C-2 uses. The Secretary commented that if any con- sideration were to be given C-2 type uses which happen to be on the ground floor of an office building located in the C-2 zone, it should be noted that the present ordinance recognizes cer- tain C-1 uses as being permitted uses in the C-2 zone as well. It was the consensus that provision had been made for signery for retail type uses as a control measure, recognizing that 1) intensity of retail uses differed from non-retail commercial uses and 2) retail uses merited signery considerations not valid in terms of non-retail type uses. The Secretary was directed to draft a letter conveying the reasoning of the Commission relative to the inclusion of the word "retail" in the proposed mod- ifications of the sign ordinance rela- tive to ground floor uses in multi-story office buildings located in the C-2 District. The meeting recessed at 9:45 P.M. and resumed at 10:40 p.m. Draft Ordinance The Secretary introduced a draft Amending Chapter 35 ordinance amending Chapter 35, relating (Fuel Storage in to the special requirements for the I-1 T-1 D si-r9.ct) and I-2 Districts. He explained that the proposed ordinance expanded the special requirement for the I-1 District prohibiting outside storage. Iie ex- plained that the amendment would provide for the outside storage of fuel, and he reviewed previous considerations which had been given specific sites in the industrial park, namely Arctic Enter- prises and speculative building No. 3. -5- 2-15-73 Recommend Adoption Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Scott to re- commend approval and adoption of the following ordinances AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 RELATING TO SPECIAL REQUIPEMENTS IN THE I-1 AND I-2 DISTRICTS Section is Section 35-413 is hereby amended as follows: • 9. Outdoor Storage and Activity In the Industrial Park District (I-1) all production, storage, servicing, or merchandising, except offstreet parking and offstreet loading shall be conducted within completely enclosed buildings. Fuel storage facilities not located within a completely enclosed building or buried below grade shall be completely screened from view utilizing earth or opaque :structural materials. Said screeninq device shall be appropriately larndscaped and shall by aesthetically compatible with other structures and landscaping in the site_. Detailed plans for said screening shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council The motion passed unanimously. Comments on The Director of Public Works briefly meeting with commented on a recent staff meeting held various parties regarding proposal by the City of regarding Fox Run Brooklyn Park that a public road should Site be provided through that area, including the recently approved site and buildings known as Fox Run. He noted that the City of Brooklyn Park had maintained that a curb cut onto 73rd Avenue North could not be allowed as proposed by the Fox Run developer unless a public road running between 69th and 73rd Avenues North, through the site, was also pro- vided. Mr. Merila explained that after extensive discussion, a tentative agreement had been reached that a roadway extending through the Creek Villa's Townhouse site on the east to Trunk Highway 152 would be provided in addition to the approved access points with no public roadway through the Fox Run site from 69th to 73rd. • The Director of Public Works further ex- plained that provision for such a road- way through the Creek Villa's development had been comprehended at the time of approval and that necessary easements had been required for the use of a 30 foot roadway connecting the now Fox Run site with Trunk Highway 152. -6- 2-15-73 Discussion of The next item of business was discussion Proposed Freeway of a proposed establishment of a Free- oriented Business way Development District. District The Secretary recalled that the matter had been bef-)re the Commission some time ago and had been deferred for a variety of reasons until it was recently revived in response to several rezoning requests by the developer of the Industrial Park. He explained that the developer felt some provision for commercial as well as I-1 uses would provide a flexibility in the planning and development of freeway oriented businesses. The Secretary also commented that exten- sive staff consideration had been given. to the merits of the establishment of a new zoning district, versus other means by which the goal of providing for a freeway oriented planned district could be reached. He stated that the current recommendation was for the establishment of another special use in the I-1 Dis- trict, which comprehended the mixture of C-2 uses with the permitted I-1 uses. He noted the similarity of this concept with that recently adopted by the City r-ega:-ding a Planned Residential Develop- ment as a special use in the R-3 zone. Extensive discussion ensued, and con- cern was noted over the ramifications of future development of that I-1 area along 69th Avenue North, which abutted a residential zone. The Secretary com- mented that the controls providing for discretion and selective development in that area as well as in other areas of the I-1 District would be provided for under the ordinance special use pro- visions. Chairman Jensen responded that the controls under the requirements of a rezoning procedure would be more effective, particularly in that area where a residential zone was involved, than would the control measure of es- tablishing conditions for a special use permit. Commissioners Foreman and Bogucki stated that if a freeway oriented district were to be provided, it should be delineated • in such a way as to comprehend land fronting onto the Interstate Freeway or Trunk Highway 100. It was the con- sensus of the Commission that any con- cept providing for commercial freeway oriented activities should be limited to that I-1 area south of Shingle Creek Parkway. Following further discussion, Chairman Jensen stated that the matter would be -7- 2-15-73 ♦ • f 3 carried over as a discussion item at an ensuing meeting. Discussion of in other business, Commissioner Foreman Possible Need stated that the Commission should give for Car Wash stated to possible standards for operation and t ds car washers, in that there was evidence Standards major oil companies are in the process ` of developing plans for the installation of car washing facilities at a large number of existing stations. A brief discussion ensued and it was the con- sensus to defer this matter for further discussion at an ensuing meeting. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Grosshans seconded by Commissioner Foreman to adjourn the meeting. The motion pasted unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 12;00 Midnight. Chairman -8- 2-15-73