HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 11-18 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 18, 1971
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to
order by Chairman pro-tem Robert Grosshans at 8:10 P.M.
Roll Call: Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans, Commissioners Bogucki,
Schuller, Scott and Foreman. Also present were Director of Public
Works, James Merila, Chief Building Inspector, Jean Murphey, and
Administrative Assistant, Blair Tremere.
Motion by Commissioner Foreman and seconded by Commissioner
Scott to approve the minutes of the November 4, 1971, meeting. All
voted in favor except Commissioner Schuller who abstained because he
was not at the November 4th meeting. The motion carried.
Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of
business was Planning Commission Application No. 71041 submitted by
White Advertising.
The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who commented that the
applicant is seeking a variance from Section 34-140 of the Sign
Ordinance to permit the construction of a temporary sign at the
Holiday Inn Motel located at 1501 - 65th Avenue North.
Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans recognized a representative of the
applicant who stated that the request for a variance was for a free-
standing temporary sign and not for a roof sign as stated in the
application as published with the agenda. He stated further that
the sign would be 8 feet by 20 feet and if approved would be located
on the subject property facing the Humboldt Avenue off-ramp.
Mr. Murphey stated that since the applicant in fact was not
sking a variance for a roof sign, and since the proposed sign would
be temporary and freestanding, there was little reason to recommend
denial of the application because Section 34-140 (Permitted Signs
Requiring A Permit) paragraph (2a) would allow such a sign.
Following a brief discuss-.on, a motion was made by Commissioner
Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to recommend approval
of Planning Commission Applica'- .-.n No. 71041 s-ibmitted by White
Advertising requesting a va1-ia:Lce to permit en=ction of a temporary
freestanding sign on the site of the Holiday *.r-Pn Motel. The
motion carried unanimously.
The next item of business was Planning Commission Application
No. 71064 submitted by L' ._wc,on, Inc.
The it;:m was introduced by Mr. Murphey who stated that the
applicant is requesting a variance to permit the use of a wet stand-
pipe system in lieu of an automatic fire sprinkling system. He
stated that the applicant is also asking for an ordinance interpre-
tation that would permit the omission of the elevator space from
the gross floor area calculation. He noted that the reason for the
variance is obviously to reduce cost and the ordinance interpretation
is to reduce the required number of parking spaces.
If was the consensus of the Commission that there were in effect,
two distinct items in the application and that they should be
considered separately.
.�:, � ,
_ :.#
-�:
i.•.
-2-
A discussion then ensued on the request for a variance to permit
the use of a wet standpipe system.
Mr. Murphey stated that a wet standpipe is an auxiliary fire
line system with constant water supply installed primarily for
emergency fire use by the occupants of the building. He noted
further that the argument put forth by the applicant is that on
July 1, 1972, the State Building Code will be effective, and under
that code, an automatic fire sprinkling system will not be required
except in the basement garage and in linen or rubbish chutes.
Mr. Murphey also stated that it was the conclusion of staff
analysis if the City, in fact, can not require an automatic fire
sprinkler after July 1, 1972, then the applicant's argument has
some merit, but approval of this variance would establish a precedent
that would be the rule for the next seven or eight months.
Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans then recognized Mr. VanEeckhout,
representing the applicant, who commented on the intent of the
application of the State Building Code to municipalities. He stated
that the concern of the legislature as well as the building industry
was to provide uniform standards throughout the State and from
community to community. He stated that the applicant's interpretation
of this intent indicated that if a sprinkler system were installed
according to the City Ordinance, that the State law could then still
require the installation of a standpipe once the State law took
effect in July. Mr. VanEeckhout concluded this, in effect, would
render the building obsolete with regard to fire safety until a wet
standpipe system was also installed.
Mr. Murphey commented that the code provides that where a
rinkler system has been installed, that another fire extinguishing
System was not mandatory.
Mr. VanEeckhout said that it was the applicant's contention
that a hardship would be realized due to the cost difference
between a sprinkler system and a wet standpipe system as well as
the risk of being required to install a wet standpipe system should
a sprinkler system be installed under the City Ordinance.
After further discussion relative to the characteristics of the
two fire control systems, Commissioner Bogue-U stated that it
appeared that the primary hard hip submitted by the applicant was
an economic one. F?e stated that the -.;: licaiit- should possibly
further investigate the savings which might be realized in fire
insurance premiums with the installation of a sprinkler system as
opposed to a wet standpipe system.
Commissioner Schuller stated that there appeared to be a need
for formal legal interpretation as to whether the State code could
take absolute precedence over all requirements of local ordinances.
Following further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner
Bogucki and seconded by Cornnissioner Scott to recommend denial of
the first item of Planning Commission Application No. 71064 relative
to the request for a variance to permit the use of a wet standpipe
system in lieu of an automatic fire sprinkler system, noting that
the Planning Commission could not act without legal counsel concerning
the basic issue of whether the State Code would take absolute
precedence over the provisions of the City Ordinance. The motion
carried unanimously.
-3-
Commissioner Ditter arrived at 9:50 P.M.
The Commission then proceeded to consider the second item of
Planning Commission Application No. 71064 relative to a request for
an ordinance interpretation that would permit the omission of the
elevator space from the gross floor area calculations. Mr. Murphey
explained that under the original site plan submitted by the
applicant for a six story office building, 344 parking spaces were
required. He stated that since that time, the applicant had
submitted revised plans indicating a different use for a top
floor structure, which in effect, would mean the building was a
seven story building, and the applicant had, in addition, revised
the intended use of the ground floor which had been designated as
parking area. Thus, with the revisions, only 333 parking spaces
were provided. He stated that if the elevator shaft areas were
eliminated from the gross area calculations, that 333 parking
spaces would be within the ordinance requirements.
Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner
Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Scott to recommend approval of
the second item of Planning Commission Application No. 71064
relative to the request for an ordinance interpretation that would
permit the omission of the elevator space from the gross floor area
calculations. The motion carried unanimously.
The next :item of business was re-consideration of Planning
Commission Application No. 71025 submitted by Viewcon, Inc.
Mr. Murphey introduced the item stating that the applicant
had made certain revisions to the original site and building
plans for the six story office buildings to be located at Shingle
Creek Parkway and County Road 10. He stated that the applicant had
re-designed the use of a mechanical room on top of the six story
structure to be used as a penthouse or executive board room. Mr.
Murphey noted that a revised use as a penthouse in effect changes
the character of the structure to a seven story building. He
commented that there were three basic considerations:
1. The proposed penthouse represented a different use
for the area than that indicated on the original plan;
2. The proposed use as a penthouse represented a different
use than that found in the rest of the building, and that
the proposed use in fact, made the area a place of public
assembly; and
3. A need was therefore created for two exits from the
penthouse.
Mr. VanEeckhout, rep resenting the applicant, stated that the area
would still house mechanical equipment, but that it would also be a
relaxation or leisure facility constructed for the use of the tenants.
The Commission adjourned at 9:05 P.M. to examine an architect's
model of the structure and reconvened at 9:10 P.M.
A lengthy discussion then ensued relative to the design and use
of the building and Mr. Murphey suggested that the Commission require
the developer to submit landscape and lighting plans as a condition
of the approval of the building and site plan.
M1
I
i-:
-4-
Mr. VanEeckhout stated that the developer would provide lighting
and landscaping plans to the Commission for approval, but that the
developer would prefer to have them as a condition of the standard
improvement bond and not of the building permit itself. He stated
that the lighting and landscaping had not been formally prepared in
that they were not immediately relevant to the construction chronology.
He stated that the building permit was needed as soon as possible.
however, so that initial construction could commence before it was
prohibited by the weather.
Following further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner
Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Foreman, to recommend approval
of the revised building and site plan submitted with Planning
Commission Application No. 71025 subject to the following conditions:
1. Lighting and landscaping plans will be submitted to the
Planning Commission and Council for examination and approval;
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. 71066 submitted by William Doane.
Mr. Murphey introduced the item stating that the applicant
was requesting a variance from 25 feet to 15 feet on a side yard
setback on a corner lot. He stated further that the applicant has
a 43 foot wide lot and wishes to build a garage facing the side
street with a setback of 15 feet. He noted that this was an area of
older platting and narrow lots with an original setback of 15 feet
from the side street. He stated that many of the houses and garages
have been built with the old setback.
Motion by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner
Bogucki to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application
No. 71066 submitted by William Doane. The motion carried unanimously.
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 P.M. and reconvened
at 9:45 P.M.
The next item of business was Planning Commission Application
No. 71050 submitted by Topeka Inn Management, Inc.
The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who stated that the
applicant has submitted additional information relative to the
construction of signs, and in addition, has submitted a proposal
utilizing signs which meets the ordinance requirements except for
height. .
I
> .... k�,
��
-5-
Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans recognized Mr. Pringle, who
represented the applicant. Mr. Pringle stated that the revised
proposal was for a height variance and that the applicant had
determined that a sign somewhat smaller than the 250 square foot
maximum provided by the city Ordinance would be used. He stated
that the applicant requested approval of a variance which would
permit the sign to be at least 60 feet in height. He noted that
the sign itself was approximately 25 feet in height. He stated that
the applicant felt that at least 60 feet in height was required to
provide adequate identificat.i.on for the business considering the
sight obstruction of the Humboldt Avenue overpass.
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the height needed for
adequate identification. Commissioner Bogucki noted that a precedent
had been established with the granting of a variance to Iten
Chevrolet who experience a similar problem with an overpass
obstruction. Commissioner Ditter stated that further evidence
should be made available relative to whether 60 feet should be
the minimum or the maximum height needed for an adequate sign.
The Director of Public Works, James Merila, presented an estimate
of the height required, basing his calculations on the photographs
and strip maps submitted by the applicant at a previous meeting.
r Merila emphasized that the estimate was a rough approximation
and that possibly further field research was necessary.
Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner
Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Foreman to recommend approval
of Planning Commission Application No. 71050, as amended, recommending
a height variance of 60 feet, noting the height variance precedent
established in the prior approval of a similar application submitted
by Iten Chevrolet.
Those voting in favor of the motion: Chairman Pro-tem .-
Grosshans, Commissioners Bogucki, Schuller, Scott and Foreman.. .
Voting against: Ditter. The motion carried.
The nest item of business was Planning Commission Application
No. 71039 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc.
The item was introduced by Mr. Murphy who indicated the
applicant is requesting a change in the preliminary Registered
Land Survey which was approved October 21, 1971. He stated
the site for the proposed Nino's Restaurant has been altered makiftg
it necessary to withdraw part of the Registered Land Survey.
Following a brief diE---x;.csion, a motion was made by Commissioner
Ditter and seconded by Corcanissioner Foreman to recommended
approval of Planning Coimi-ission Application No. 71039 as amended.
The motion carried unanizrousl y.
T'v-, r:.,r, item cons =:.-%s Planning Commission Application
No. 7;,.`:*,02 submitted by rxooklyn Center industrial Park, Inc.
Nor. N«rphey introduced the item stating the applicant was
requesting approval of a Registered Land Survey of the City block
lying between James Avenue North on the east, Shingle Creek Parkway
on the west and extending from 65th Avenue to 67th Avenue. He noted
the reason for the subdivision, is to provide building sites having
a single legal description.
Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner
Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Foreman to recommend approval
of Planning Commission Application No. 71062. The motion carried
unanimously.
i
, r.^.
R
�, ., � .:
-6-
The next item of business was a continuation of the consideration
of Planning Commission Application No. 71055 submitted by R.L. Ernst.
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.
Chairman Pro-tern Grosshans explained the applicant had been
asked to submit more complete plans which include development of
the entire parcel, with special emphasis on the proposed
residential structures and proposed access.
Mr. Murphey stated the applicant had submitted conceptual
sketches, and that it was the staff's opinion these represented
ideas only, not firm developmental site and building plans.
Chairman Pro-tern Grosshans recognized Mr. Ernst who said he had
consulted with the Director of Public works regarding the accesses.
He also commented that the original plans for the proposed con-
venience center were, in his opinion, complete.
Commissioner Bogucki stated that Mr. Ernst had consumed a
great deal of the Commission's time as well as the Council and
staff, with past applications which were consistently vague,
incomplete and unreasonable. fie said the applicant apparently
was continuing this practice and that there evidently was a
communication problem between the applicant and the City, as evidenced
by Mr. Ernst's persistent submission of "Mickey Mouse" type docu-
mentation to support his proposals.
Motion by Commissioner Bogueki to recommend denial of Application
No. 71055 submitted by R. L. Ernst.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Commissioner Bogucki left the Commission table at 10:55 P.M.
Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans commented to Mr. Ernst that the
plans submitted for the proposed development of the entire parcel
were not complete, and that the Commission needed more extensive
data before acting on the application.
After further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner
Schuller and seconded by Cl-.:irnciissioner Ditter to table consideration
of Planning Commission No. 71055 submitted by R. L. Ernst.
All voted in favor except co-Arc,7-issioner Foreman who abstained and
Commissioner Bogucki who .,-,as no I.- present at the time of the motion.
Cots' ._^:: .oner BoqucT _ to the meeting at 11:00 P.M.
} n : at item con ..],.:,r,_ E,-as data presently by the Director
Of PI-Iblic Works, relati;;_ to the size of s igrls erected by the State
alone _:94 in Ercoklyn Cen e;:. The data indicated that the maximum
size for signs between T.H. 152 and T.H. 169 interchanges was 176
square feet.
Motion by Commissioner Schuller, seconded by Commissioner
Foreman to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:1.0 P.M. i/D
Chair n
1
1
1