Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 11-04 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota November 4, 1971 The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:05 P.M. Roil Calls Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Scott, Foreman, Ditter and Bogucki. Also present were: Director of Public Works James Merila, Chief Building Inspector Jean Murphey, and Administrative Assistant Blair Tremere. Motion by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Scott to approve the minutes of the October 21, 1971, meeting. All voted in favor except for Commissioner Foreman who abstained since he was not at the October 21st meeting. The motion carried. Commissioner Grosshans arrived at 8:10 P.M. Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 71054 submitted by Brian Murn. The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who commented that the applicant is seeking site and building plan approval for a property. located in the southwest quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and 65th Avenue North. He noted that rezoning from R-5 to C-1 was approved by the City council January 19, 1970, to permit the construction of a dental clinic. He noted also that the application for rezoning was recommended by the West Central Neighborhood Committee with the suggestion that a clinic is a needed service in this area. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. John Rauma representing the applicant who further explained the intended development to the Commissioners. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Foreman to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71054 subject to the following conditions: 1. Cast in-place concrete curbing in the parking lot be arranged to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 2. Drainage and utility plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 3. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 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 the site improvements as designated on the plans submitted. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 71055 submitted by R. L. Ernst. ., .. :. I I, i �I li _ - _ -- ------ -2- The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who stated the appli- cant is seeking site and building plan approval for a convenience center to be located at 69th Avenue and Girard Avenue North. He further noted that the proposed site is part of -Lot 2, Hi crest Square Addition, lying east of the property that has approval for a "Rapid Shop" that faces on Humboldt Avenue. He noted the appli- cation also includes the subdivision of a lot which could not be considered because of the lack of time for newspaper publication. Commissioner Foreman stated that he would not take part in the deliberation of this application since he was an officer and director of a corporation which was presently negotiating for an option on -a property which included the parcel in question. Mr. Murphey stated that it was the opinion of the staff that approval of this application would isolate the remainder of Lot 2, with the only possible access being at the Southwest corner over land the applicant does not own, or at the northeast corner over a 40 foot wide roadway which would be part of the remainder of Lot 2. He further stated that if the remainder of Lot 2 can be developed as s single use such as R-5 apartments, then the proposed convenience center would fit quite well, but if the lot remainder is to be developed for commercial uses, serious problems relating to access, setback and screening could arise. Chairman Jensen then recognized the applicant, Mr. Ernst, who stated that he had a contract to purchase the parcel as well as the remainder of the lot and that it would be his intent to develop the remainder of Lot 2 with a residential use. He also noted that the application before the Commission was for a multi- btlsi neon r-orivPnionce center. A discussion ensued wherein Chairman jonssu commented as to the adequacy of the proposed parking and access to the convenience center as depicted on the plans submitted. Commissioner Bogucki stated that there was a need for a conceptual plan for the entire area and that this was vital in order to adequately evaluate the present proposal. with respect to the future need for a possible seven foot easement for the installation of a sidewalk, the Director of Public Works commented that sidewalks would be put in when the County widens 69th Avenue. The applicant stated that he would be agreeable to granting a seven foot easement for that purpose. Commissioner Grosshans commented that the main problem appeared to be adequate access to the convenience center and Chairman Jensen stated that more detailed conceptual plans for the entire tract were necessary. The Director of Public Works commented that the plans submitted by the applicant were very preliminary and that they had not afforded the staff much opportunity for a thorough review and there were possible ramifications that would be undesirable if the project were approved without more detailed planning. Following further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by commissioner Scott to table Planning Commission Application No. 71055 for further study. Those voting in favor were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Scott, Ditter, Bogucki and Grosshans. Commissioner Foreman abstained. The motion carried. 1 1 i -3- The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 71056 submitted by Federal Lumber Company. Mr. Murphey introduced the application, stating the applicant is requesting site and building plan approval for a 24 foot by 168 foot lumber storage building. He noted that the building was very similar to one that was approved in 1969. He commented that the applicant desires to build without using a fire extinguishing system. He noted the applicant had listed the following reasons for this desire: 1. The building would be entirely open on the north side and would be unheated; 2. None of the other buildings and sheds have sprinkling systems; 3. Water supply lines would not be readily available and the cost of installation would be prohibitive. Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Rosenbaum who represented the applicant and he stated that in effect, the applicant desired to just put a roof over standing lumber which was already there. Following a brief discussion of alternative fire extinguishing systems, a motion was made by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71056 subject to the following conditions: 1. Fire extincyiishers shall be installed as required by the City Fire Marshal_ and a report from the Fire Marshal shall be made to the City Council; 2. Drainage and utility plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 3. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 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 the site improvements as designated on the plans submitted. The motion carried unanimously. The next item considered was Planning Commission Application No. 71058 submitted by United National Investments. The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who stated the appli- cant is requesting approval for a 48 car parking lot to be located on the east side of Logan Avenue adjacent to Northbrook Shopping Center. He noted the purpose of the request is for employee parking and to supplement the regular on-site parking facilities. Mr. Murphey stated that staff analysis indicated the south 55 feet of the proposed parking lot is zoned R4 and the north 75 feet is zoned Cl. He stated that public parking lots are only 1 1 -4- permitted as accessory uses in any of the City's zoning classifi- cations, and must be located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory. He commented that Section 35-240, (2) states that the Planning Commission and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A discussion ensued wherein Chairman Jensen stated that it appeared the application presented the possibility of the creation of a parking zone district which would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. He said that this would require a hearing by neighborhood residents as well as further research by the staff. He noted also that there was a need to consider screening should this use be allowed. The Director of Public Works, James Merila, commented that there was a vital need for more traffic planning relative to the entire Northbrook Center. He stated that he had discussed this with officials of the Northbrook Center, especially with regard to the increasing number of traffic problems on 57th Avenue. He stated that possibly this aspect of the traffic situation could be included in the deliberation of the present application. After further discussion, a, motion was made by Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Commissioner Foreman to table Planning Commission Application No. 71058 for further study to include analysis and recommendation on the over-all traffic situation for the Northbrook Center. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission next reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 71059 submitted by Home Federal Savings and Loan. The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who stated that the applicant was seeking approval for the installation of a driveway around the present bank building located at 2901 Northway Drive, as well as the installation of a drive-up banking window. He further noted that the application appears to be in order and conforms to ordinance requirements. The Director of Public Works commented that there were some apparent problems with the drainage plans that could potentially create icing problems along the newly installed sidewalks. He stated that the staff could work with the applicant in resolving these problems. Motion by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71059 subject to the following conditions; 1. Grading of the driveway and drainage 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. i i II i 1 -5- 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 the site improvements as designated on the plans submitted. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:40 P.M. and reconvened at 10:15 P.M. Chairman Jensen announced that the Commission would continue with its deliberations on sign variance requests, specifically, the pending applications for variances submitted by Topeka Inn Management relative to the Holiday Inn under construction. Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Pringle representing Topeka Inn Management. Mr. Pringle stated that the applicant felt there was a need for a sign larger than that provided in the ordinance due to the volume and high speed of freeway traffic as well as the unique topographical problems experienced at the motel site. He then presented to the Commission various photographs and layout prints of the site and sight distance data which had been compiled. He stated that the sign the applicant would like to erect is approximately 830 square feet in area and is known as the "Standard Great Sign". Mr. Pringle commented that the motel contractor has indicated that the sign materials should be ordered as soon as possible so construction can be completed by the scheduled opening date in the Spring of 1972. A lengthy discussion ensued during which Chairman Jensen stated that the Commission and eventually the City Council should give consideration to the creation of a freeway sign district, recognizing the particular problems and needs of freeway oriented businesses. Commissioner Ditter stated that the applicant should investigate further the availability of signs smaller than the "Standard Great Sign" . He stated that possibily the applicant should consider a more feasible alternative before seeking a variance from the sign ordinance. Commissioner Foreman stated that he was sympathic with the claims of the applicant, especially with respect to the topographical problems. Commissioner Grosshans stated that thorough consideration should be given to the traffic velocity and volume along the freeway and the related need to adequately identify the business. He stated, however, an 830 square foot sign was unusually large as compared to the 250 square foot maximum allowed in the ordinance. He suggested that the applicant should determine the availability of custom made signs which would be more in line with the sign ordinance. Commissioner Scott commented that rather than granting a variance to the present ordinance, that possibly an addition could be made to the ordinance which would comprehend future developments along the freeway. Mr. Pringle stated that he would prepare further data relative to the applicant's claim that a larger sign was needed and would investigate the availability of a custom made sign of a smaller size than the "Standard Great Sign". He stated that he would make this information available to the staff and the Commission prior to the November 18th study session. 1 L 1 -6- After further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Sogucki, seconded by Commissioner Scott to direct the staff to prepare a memorandum setting forth the data which could be used in preparing a resolution recommending approval of the variance request as well as a resolution recommending denial of the application, to be presented to the Commission at the November 18th meeting. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Pringle stated that the applicant intended to seek a variance which would permit the erection of a sign displaying the Holiday Inn script on the roof of the motel. He stated that the sign would be approximately 15 feet high whereas the ordinance allowed for a 6 foot high roof sign. He noted that the sign would be lighted. Chairman Jensen then informally polled the Commission relative to this request and it was the consensus of the Commission that such a roof sign would not be desirable. Chairman Jensen commented that Planning Commission Application No. 71041 submitted by White Advertising requested a variance to permit erection of a temporary sign on the Holiday Inn site which would identify the development. Mr. Murphey commented that this is a request for a variance from the ordinance and it would be necessary to conduct a public hearing on the matter. Motion by Commissioner Rogucki and seconded by Commissioner Scott to send notice of public hearing to the affected property owners and to publish an announcement of a public hearing on the variance requested in Planning Commission Application No. 71041. The motion carried unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Ditter to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:55 P.M. Chi an i I