Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970 07-30 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota July 30, 1970 The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 7:38 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Henry Bogucki, Karl Schuller, and Robert Grosshans. Commissioners absent were: Paul Ditter, Adrian Dorenfeld and Charles Nichols. Staff members: B. E. Peterson, Tom Loucks. As the first item of business, Chairman Jensen requested that the Commission address itself to an interim staff report on nursing homes. Chairman Jensen stated that the staff is developing a draft Nursing Home Ordinance which will establish standards for nursing homes and until that ordinance is developed, the Fleissner Appli- cations will remain tabled. Chairman Jensen then recognized representatives of the Ron Fleissner applications that were present: Mr. Winslow R. Chamberlain, President of the Winslow R. Chamberlain Equity Corporation, Vice Presidents Mr. Fred 0. Donaldson, Mr. Donald Olson, and Mr. Joseph Gittis, a corporate official of the Gold Medallion Nursing Homes. Chairman Jensen asked the applicants what their proposed timing was in regard to constructing the pro- posed nursing home. Mr. Olson responded that Gold Medallion , wished to construct the nursing home in September or October at which time their option on the property was due to expire. Chair- man Jensen commented that the Planning Commission would be willing to hold a special meeting as soon as the staff has gathered all the necessary information regarding this application. Mr. Donaldson commented that as a representative of the applicant, his firm and the Gold Medallion firm would like to review the proposed nursing home ordinance. Chairman Jensen responded that the Planning Commission would review and comment on the proposed nursing home ordinance and consider comments from the applicant. However, the Planning Commission will consider two factors in the following order: 1) The draft ordinance establishing standards for nursing homes; and 2) The question of land use. Mr. Donaldson then asked the Planning Commission if they have changed their attitude regarding using the land for a nursing home. Chairman Jensen stated that the Commission's attitude had not officially changed, however, the staff is gathering and analysing information in order to establish density standards and rules and regulations for operation of a nursing home facility. Chairman Jensen then assured representatives of the applicant that if they contact the staff, they would be kept informed. The Planning Commission and Staff next considered an automobile signery study. Mr. Loucks stated that the signery study was under- taken at the request of the Planning Commission at its July 2nd meeting in regard to signs at automobile dealerships in general. Fie commented that six dealerships had been surveyed and subsequent results indicated that 4 of 6 dealerships had non-conforming signs. The purpose of the study, he stated, is not to change the existing sign ordinance to accommodate the Brookdale Ford Application (Application No. 70028) but rather to re-examine its relationship to all automobile dealerships. Mr. Loucks also commented that 1 1 -2- the Commission should look at the uniqueness of automobile dealer- ships and their ability to offer many services over a large land area. Following this, Chairman Jensen asked Mr. Loucks what automobile dealerships had non-conforming signs. Mr. Loucks responded that Velie Oldsmobile, Brookdale Ford, Brookdale Chrysler- Plymouth, and Tten Chevrolet all had non-conforming signs. There followed a discussion among the Commissioners of each of the above dealerships with non-conforming signs and the uniqueness of automobile dealerships. Commissioner Bogucki commented that automobile dealerships have many businesses within one, such as car sales, used car sales, repair and leasing services. Chairman Jensen suggested that those automobile dealerships not in conformance with the sign ordinance should possibly be granted a variance. Mr. Loucks responded that if the Commission grants a variance for automobile dealerships which are in a C2 zoning district, then probably all other businesses in a C2 zoning district could be granted a second freestanding sign. Chairman Jensen then questioned what is the difference between a super market and an automobile dealership. Mr. Loucks responded that in most instances businesses in a C2 zoning district merchandise their goods within the confines of a building whereas automobile dealerships merchandise their products both inside and outside over a wide area. During the discussion of whether or not automobile dealerships are unique and need a second freestanding sign, Commissioner Grosshans commented that automobile dealerships are obvious, so why would there be a need for a second sign. Chairman Jensen agreed that automobile dealerships are obvious, but possibly , the need for additional sign is for the convenience of the customers. Commissioner Grosshans suggested that all non-conforming signs should be taken down. Mr. Loucks responded that it is not legally possible to take down non-conforming signs because these signs were legal prior to the new sign ordinance. Chairman Jensen then polled the Commissioners regarding their views on changing the sign ordinance in order to allow a second freestanding sign specifically for automobile dealerships. Commissioner Schuller preferred the existing sign ordinance whereas Commissioner Bogucki agreed to the proposed sign ordinance change allowing a second freestanding sign. Commissioner Grosshans had mixed emotions and stated that, in his opinion, automobile dealerships were not unique any more than any other kind of business because all businesses were unique. Commissioner Schuller stated that by their nature, automobile dealerships are big and therefore they just don't need a second freestanding sign. At this time, Chairman Jensen then asked for a vote on the proposed amendment to the Sign ordinance which would allow a second freestanding sign. Commissioner Grosshans then suggested that if two signs were to be allowed, that the first sign would only identify new cars and the second sign would identify used cars because of the fact that automobile dealerships have two businesses in one. Following further discussion of the proposed amendment to the sign ordinance, a motion was made by Henry Bogucki and seconded by Robert Grosshans, to recommend to the City Council that an amend* ment be added to subsection C, Chapter 34-140.3.A(2) as follows: (c) Automobile Sales and Service These individual business establishments having a gross floor area in excess of 24,000 square feet may have a second freestanding sign with a maximum sign area not to exceed 125 square feet and a maximum height not to exceed 24 feet above the first floor elevation of the principal building providing a second sign is related to the principal use such as used cars, service repairs, leasing, truck sales. 1 1 -3-- Voting in favor were: Jensen, Bogucki and Grosshans. Voting against: Commissioner Schuller. (Commissioner Schuller opposed a change to the sign ordinance because it is his opinion that the present sign ordinance was not restrictive and that because of the large size of automobile dealerships, that this was in itself an obvious fact and therefore did not need additional signery.) Motion carried. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:14 P.M. and reconvened at 9:21 P.M. The next item for consideration was Planning Commission Application No. 70017 originally submitted by Glad and Miller and now by Viewcon, Inc. , requesting site and building plan approval, consistent with rezoning application No. 68018. The City Council approved both applications, No. 70017 and 68018, at its May 25, 1970, Council meeting. Application No. 70017 requested site and building plan approval for a 99 unit apartment building. The present request by Viewcon, Inc. is for approval of an additional 25 apartment units for a total of 124 units versus the Glad and Miller 99 apartment units. This property is bounded by Trunk Highway 100, Lakeside Avenue and Lower Twin Lakes. Following its introduction by Mr. Loucks, the Chair recognized Mr. Charles VanEeckhout, representative of Viewcon, Inc. Mr. VanEeckhout explained that the apartment buildings have been lengthened easterly and the detached garage moved closer to the apartment for more convenient access. He further stated that a second underground tunnel has been added for the convenience of the north units. Also, that the apartment buildings will be con- verted from a walk-up to a building equipped with elevators. The staff then commented that the basic setbacks on the original Glad and Miller site plan will stay the same as well as the basic con- figuration of the entire complex. During a review of the revised application, it was suggested that the applicant eliminate the walkway coming from north of the apartment building to Lakebreeze Avenue. Mr. Van Eeckhout stated that the reason for the revision of the Glad and Miller plans by Viewcon was that Glad and Miller could not get financing to construct 99 apartment units. Motion by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to recommend to the City Council approval of the revised Planning Commission Application No. 70017 submitted by Viewcon, Inc_ requesting site and building plan approval for 124 unit apartment building subject to the City Council conditions of May 25, 1970, as follows: 1) That in the future, if direct access to T.H. 100 at Indiana Avenue is shut off, that a substitute access to T.H. 100 be provided by a new street to be located between Azelia Avenue and France Avenue and meeting Lakebreeze Avenue; 2) Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 3) Utility and drainage and elevation plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit; 1 1 1 -4- 4) A performance agreement and performance bond (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee site improvements as designated on the plans submitted; 5) A landscape planting schedule must be presented indicating adequate plantings on the northern part of the subject property along Lakeside Avenue; 6) That the property must be platted; 7) That site and building plan approval be contingent upon the developer transferring title to the City for the open space west of the subject property and abutting Lower Twin Lake. Motion carried unanimously. The next item for consideration related to an extension to Planning Commission Application No. 69022 submitted by Iten Chevrolet approving a special use permit for the placement of a mobile home trailer on the premises of Iten Chevrolet to serve as a temporary truck sales office. The City Council, at its . November 17, 1969, meeting extended said application until July 1, 1970. The property is located at 6701 Osseo Road. Following its introduction by Mr. Loucks, it was explained that Mr. Joseph Iten was contacted by letter dated June 29, 1970, stating that his special use permit expires on July 1st and that he must cease all sales operation from said trailer at that time. It was noted that the applicant has submitted a letter of intent dated July 16, 1970, in regard to preliminary site and building plans for the construction of a truck sales office. The appli- cant stated that he hopesto complete these plans and build said building sometime within the next 12 to 18 months. The Commission next discussed that the applicant has received generous extensions under the special use permit and that the applicant's request of an extension from 12 to 18 months is far more time than necessary to construct a truck sales office building. Motion by Commissioner Karl Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Henry Bogucki to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 69022 requesting an extension of a special use permit be approved, with a further recommendation that it be temp- orary and expire within 9 months from July 1, 1970 a April 1, 1971, and that the trailer be removed from the premise Eby that date. Voting for same were: Commissioners Bogucki, Schuller and Jensen. Voting against was Grosshans. (Commissioner Grosshans again reiterated that he did not approve of the use of the mobile home type trailer on the premises.) The motion carried. Chairman Jensen next commented that the two Neighborhood Committee Reports, the West Central and Southwest Neighborhood Committees have not yet filed reports stating that they have reviewed those sections of the Comprehensive Plan that apply to their neighborhood. Commissioner Grosshans commented that the West Central Neighborhood Committee will file its report by the 1 1 1 -5- August 27th study meeting. Chairman Jensen suggested that the Commission set aside one night to review the recommendations of the Neighborhood Committees. The Planning Commission next reviewed a draft ordinance amending Chapter 35 requiring lawn sprinkler systems in certain zoning districts. The staff commented that said ordinance was reviewed by the City Council at its July 27th meeting whereupon the Council directed the City Manager to find better terminology other than the wording of "underground lawn irrigation system". Following a review of said draft ordinance, Commissioner Grosshans had suggested that the words "provisions for ' be deleted and this deletion would make the suggested amendment more specific. Motion by Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to recommend to the City Council that the draft ordinance amending Chapter 35 by requiring lawn sprinkler systems in Subdivision 4 of Section 35-411 (Cl and C1A districts) and Subdivision 4 of Section 35-412 (C2 districts) and Subdivision 11 of Section 35-413 (I1 and 12 districts) , should be amended as follows: The site layout shall include an underground lawn sprinkler system to facilitate maintenance of site landscaping and green areas. The motion carried unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Grosshans, to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:57 P.M. Chairm 1 1 1