Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 08-05 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and Sta a of Minnesota August 5, 1971 The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:07 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Robert Grosshans, Paul Ditter, Robert Foreman, Henry Bogucki and Cecilia Scott. Also present were. Tom Loucks and James Merila. Motion by Cpmmi.ssioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to approve the minutes of the July 15, 1971, meeting, as submitted. The motion carried unanimously. The first item of business was planning Commission Application No. 71022 (amended) submitted by Merlin West. The item was introduced by Mr. Loucks who indicated that the applicant had appeared before the Planning Commission on July 1 and July 15, 1971 requesting a two foot height variance to allow construction of a six foot fence to provide screening and protection for the pro- posed pool to be located in the side yard of a property located at 6001 Vincent Avenue North. It was then indicated that the Planning Commission action on July 15 was to approve a variance for the construction of a six foot fence providing the top two feet would be left open so as not to obstruct the vision of drivers of vehicles attempting to back out of the driveway of the property to the north. Mr. Loucks then commented that due to an administrative error, it was not pointed out to the Commission at that time, that the swimming pool constitutes an encroachment into the side yard and also requires a variance. A discussion then ensued in regards to the philosophy of a pool serving as an encroachment in a yard setback. It was the consensus of the Commission members that it is not the intent of the ordinance to preclude pools located in yard setbacks by omission, but rather that it was simply not considered at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. Following further brief discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Foreman to re-affirm the Planning Commission action of July 15 in regard to the fence height variance and, further, to recommend approval of' the yard encroachment variance because a swimming pool should not. be considered as an encroachment. Following the second, a discussion ensued and it was the consensus of the Commission that, as a practical matter, the Commission should review the ordinance to determine if there are other uses similar to swimming pools that do not meet the criteria as an encroachment into a side yard. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 71020 (amended) submitted by B. C.I.P. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who commented that the applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to site and building plans previously approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council for the "Spec 3 and 4" business buildings to be located at 65th Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway. 1 1 1 -2- It was commented that the amended proposal comprehends 96.000 square feet of floor area; 28.000 square feet of which will be utilized for general office an6 67,000 square feet devoted to warehousing. It was then noted that an office use is not a specifically permitted use in an I-1 zoning district, however, the zoning Ordinance allows the City Council the latitude to permit a use if it is determined to be similar in nature. to other permitted uses in the district. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Krogness, representing S. C, I. P., who indicated that the amended plan is submitted for approval because severe soil conditions encountered on the northwest portion of the site makes it economically prohibitive to. construct the buildings on the locations originally proposed. He further commented that, in his opinion, the proposed office uses are compatible with other uses in the I-►1 district and requests that such a use be approved. A discussion ensued at which time Commissioner Grosshans asked. Mr. Loucks upon which basis the parking requirements had been, determined for the site. Mr. Loucks responded that the parking requirements were deter" maned in accordance with the uses being proposed for the site. It was further noted that the site plan comprehends 267 spaces to-be constructed immediately, with 80 future spaces for a total of 347 spaces. it was then commented that the requirement for the site, based upon use, is 310 spaces. Further discussion ensued at which time Chairman Jensen dented that some C1 uses appear to be compatible with I-1 . uses, and perhaps the Commission should review the Zoning . Ordinance with the intent of adding certain service/office uses as a .permitted use in an I-1 district. It was the consensus of the Commission that consideration should be given to adding service/office uses as a permitted use in the I-1 district. Following a review of the site and building plans, a motion was made by Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Commissioner . _Rogmaki to recommend to the City Council approval, of Planning Commission Application No. 71020 (amended) subject to the following conditions; 1. utility, drainage and elevation plans are subject to the approval of the City-Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 3. 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; 4. That it be determined by the City Council that the office use is compatible with permitted 1 .1 uses; -�, t.nq . -ia'"� - � - � ._- :re-__.-qe..-. � � - x -3- 5. That parking for the site is determined by land use as specified by the Zoning Ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 71027 submitted by K-Mart, Inc. °,The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who commented that the applicant is requesting site and building plan approval for a 120,000 square foot retail facility to be located on a 12 acre tract east of John Martin Drive and adjacent to Highway 100 and Summit Drive. It was noted that the site plan is in order, subject to modifications related to providing in-place concrete curbing to delineate driving and parking aisles, the utilization of concrete curb specifications that are consistent with ordinance requirements and modifications of the access provisions on Earle Brown Drive. The Planning Commission then briefly reviewed the site plan. Mr. Loucks then commented that the building plan should be given careful consideration because of an aggregate mansard panel on the front facia of the building that extends approximately 5 feet above the parapet wall. It was indicated that the problem is that the mansard panel serves as a background for a 405 square foot sign and interpretation of the Sign Ordinance classifies such a structure as a roofitign. It was noted that the maximum size allowed for such a si4n is 250 square feet. It was commented that the applicant contends that the mansard roof is an integral part of the wall structure and architecture of the building, and therefore should not be considered as a roof sign structure, but rather a parapet wall, thus the square footage requirement for a wall sign would be within the limitations of the ordinance requirements. Mr. Loucks commented that, based upon ordinance interpretation and previous Planning Commission and City Council action, the mansard cannot be defined as a parapet wall. He stated that, consequently, approval of the building plans may give substance to the argument that the mansard is part of the wall structure and not a sign structure. A discussion ensued at which time Mr. Caraback, representing K-Mart, Inc. , reitereated their arguments related to determining if the mansard structure is a part of the parapet wall. Discussi n ensued at which time Commissioner Ditter commented th , in his opinion, what the applicant is proposing is not a roof sign, but an architectural treatment to the building that can considered as part of the wail. Chairman Jensen commented that such a structure constitutes a roof sign only if letters are placed upon it and it does not appear to be a question of whether or not the mansard panel is allowed. Following a lengthy discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Scott to recommend to the City Council approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71027 subject to the following conditions: _.. ` , • �w � .��,,;. K <,. -4- 1. That the building plan is approved exclusive of any signs; 2. That in-place concrete curbing be utilized to delineate all driving and parking aisles; 3. That concrete curb specifications, consistent with ordinance requirements, will be utilized; 4. That the curb cut on Earle Brown Drive be re- designed subject to the approval of the City Engineer; S. Utility, drainage and elevation plans are subjecl. to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building. permit, 6. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 7. A performance agreement and performance bond (in an amount to be determined by the City Managed shall be submitted to the City to guarantee site improve- ments as designated on the plans submitted. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Planning Commission Applicatioq No, 71028 submitted by Zejdlik-Harmala, Inc. The item was introduced by Mr. Loucks who commented that the applicant is requesting site and building plan approv 1 for a 52 unit rental townhouse development to be located on a 5.9 acre site south of 68th and orchard Avenue North. It was commented that the proposal comprehends 34 t bedroom units and 18 three bedroom units with tuck-under garages. It was noted that the Zoning Ordinance provides for a 500 s are foot land area credit for parking stalls in or under a dw lling unit, and further, that for each bedroom in excess of two 250 square feet shall be added to the minimum land area requi ements. It. was noted that relative to these land area requirement that the applicant is requesting 20,500 square feet be die for the minimum land area requirements in accordance with the ordinance provisions_ It was further noted that the application also i es a request for vacation of Orchard Avenue North south o Avenue North, and 57th Avenue North, east of Lot ?, H. Sm lden's Addition. He commented that the intent of the applicant s to utilize the vacated property for density purposes. Chairman Jensen then recognized Robert Heitzal, representing Zejdlik-Harmala, who reviewed the proposal for the Planning Commission. Following examination of the site and building plans a brief discussion ensued at which time -Commissioner Soguaki asked if the residents adjacent to the property in question had been notified of the proposal. vll •'R9Iq'eM � .., � r � �� - ,-. Mr. ,Loucks commented that notification had not been sent to the adjacent property fawners because it is not a requirement, however, if the Commission desired, such notification could be sent prior to Council review of the matter. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Foreman, to recommend to the City Council approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71028 subject to the following conditions; 1. That the minimum land area requirements be reduced in the amount of 20,500 square feet because the plan meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance for granting such credits 2. That Orchard Avenue south of 68th Avenue North and 67th Avenue North and east of Lot 7, A. Smiiden's Addition, be vacated and added to the property in question for density purposes; 3. That the applicant provide the City with a 30 foot utility easement for inplace utilities existing on the property; 4_ That the parcel in question be replatted; 5. Utility, drainage and elevation plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 6. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building ( odes; 7. 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. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was planning Commission Application No. 71029 submitted by B. C. I.P. The item was introduced by Mr. Loucks who commented that the. applicant is requesting a special use permit for Cinama I-II-III Theater to be located at John Martin Drive and T. H. 100. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Foreman to recommend to the City council approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71029. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was discussion of roadway circulation for Evergreen Park. Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Gene Bagel, Director 'of the parks and Recreation Department, who gave a presentation related to the usage, development, programming, and Park and Recreation Commission philosophy related to providing pu?al.i.e streets around parks. 1 1 i -6- Chairman Jensen then recognized City Engineer James Merila who reviewed a traffic analysis of the area, present roadway patterns, and suggested several alternatives for future roadway circulation in the area of the park. A discussion ensued at which time Commissioner Bogucki commented that, in his opinion, heavy programming of high activity such as soft ball are not conducive to good park planning because the size of Evergreen Park is only about 20 acres and is located in the heart of a residential area. He further commented that he felt high activity parks should be located elsewhere in the City where it would not serve as a disruption to the neighborhood. Mr. Hagel commented that Evergreen Park has always been designated as a play field and consequently a high activity park, and further, he does not anticipate this use diminishing in the future. He further commented that because of the high activity, there is a need to provide adequate access to the. park. Commissioner Bogucki commented that, in his opinion, if the roadways were to be constructed around the entire perimeter of the park, it would serve as a detriment to the neighborhood by increasing traffic in the area and further serving as a barrier to children who would use the park. Following further discussion related to park function and what would be adequate access to the park, a motion was made by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to recommend the following roadway patterns in the area of Evergreen park: 1. Extend 70th Avenue North from Lyndale to Dupont Avenue; 2. provide access from 72nd Avenue North to Camden Avenue; 3. Extend Camden Avenue North south from 73rd Avenue North to. the pump house and provide a cul-de-sac near the pump house; 4. Extend Bryant Avenue North south as far as the north parking lot of Evergreen park. Those voting in favor were: Jensen, Scott, Foreman, Grosshans and Ditter; not voting: Commissioner Bogucki. The motion carried. Commissioner Bogucki commented that he would state his opposition to the proposal in 'the fora of a memorandum to the Planning Commission. Motion was made by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner ,Grosshons to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 12:30 A.M. Chairma .. I ,� s