Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 12-16 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota December 16, 1971 The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:00 P.M. Roll Call; Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Grosshans, Bogucki, Ditter, Foreman and Scott. Also present were: City Manager Donald Poss, Director of Public Works James Merila, Chief Building Inspector Jean Murphey and Administrative Assistant Blair Tremere. The City Manager offered comments relative to the interpretation of the Sign Ordinance philosophy and stated his concern over the possible ramifications of granting an increasing number of variances requested by new and existing businesses and property owners. He stated that the numerous requests claiming special circumstances as well as, or in lieu of, the ordinance standards of uniqueness and hardship should be closely scrutinized to assure uniform interpretation and enforcement of the ordinance provisions. Chairman Jensen acknowledged the City Manager's -comments, stating that he agreed and that an increasing number of variance requests concerning the same portion of the Sign Ordinance represented attacks against the philosophy of that portion of the ordinance, and that the Commission must decide whether it always agrees with that philosophy. He stated that in some isolated cases, the variance is tbe best route with the recognition that the strength of the ordinance philosophy is not being diluted. He noted, however, that repeated requests for variances must indicate that there is a need for re-examination of the basic ordinance provisions. The City ,Manager left-. the Commission meeting at 8:35 P.M. Motion by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Foreman to approve the minutes of the December 2, 1971 meeting, noting that that meeting adjourned at 1:15 A.M. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 71054 submitted by Murn and Swenson requesting revised site and building plan approval. The item was introduced by the Secretary who commented that the original application was approved on November 4, 1971, but was with- drawn by the applicant prior to review by the City Council. He stated that the building has been changed from a Type IV with a usable basement to a Type V with an unusable basement area. He noted that a Type IV is all structural elements being incombustible with steel roof, joists, and metal deck; and that a Type V is all wood frame construction with wood roof, joists, and deck. He stated that the proposed revision will provide the same amount of first floor office space at a considerable reduction in construction cost. Mr. Murphey commented that it was his opinion that the exterior of the building should be of a brick veneer, rather than the proposed wood siding, for durability purposes. He noted also that the City Engineer had recommended a change relative to an area south of the proposed building where drainage will cause ponding, and that the Engineer had suggested that a dry well would remedy the the situation. 1 1 i -2- Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Rauma who represented the applicant and who stated that the reason for the revision was to make the project economically feasible. He noted another proposed revision was the intent to construct a partial basement of approxi- mately 1300 square feet which would be used for storage as well as for housing certain mechanical devices essential to a dental clinic operation. Commissioner Ditter inquired whether the proposed addition of a' partial basement area would affect the parking requirements. Mr. Murphey respoflded that it would not, as long as the area were used only for utilities or storage and is not occupied. A discussion ensued relative to the exterior finish of the building and Mr. Murphey commented that selection of the proposed wood exterior solely on an economic basis, was questionable, con- sidering that there would be substantial maintenance costs involved. He noted again that the staff recommended a brick veneer for durability purposes as well as aesthetic purposes. Mr. Rauma commented that the applicant felt there were substantial differences in cost and that at this time, it was essential to cut costs as much as possible. The Director of Public Works noted that the Engineering Department would need to examine the proposed utility area since it is a part of the revised building and site plan. Following further discussion,. there was a motion by Commissioner Bogucki., seconded by Commissioner Foreman, to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71054 submitted by Murn and Swenson subject to the following conditions; 1. That an exterior lighting plan detailing fixtures and light intensity be submitted for staff approval; 2. That all mechanical equipment located on the roof shall be adequately screened; 3. There shall be a stair leading to a scuttle in the roof and such stair, scuttle, railings, etc. , shall comply with the requirements of the State Building Code; 4. That the State Fire Marshal's rules and regulations governing public buildings and providing accessibility and usability features for physically handicapped persons shall be observed; S. Utility and drainage 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 codes; 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 the site improvements as designated on the plans submitted. Further discussion ensued concerning the issue of the exterior finish. Commissioner Ditter inquired as to why the staff recommended 11 1 1 -3- the brick veneer, and Commissioner Bogucki stated that it was solely a matter of aesthetics, and that the City could not arbitrarily enforce an aesthetic policy. The Secretary responded that the City had an established policy relative to this type of building, and that there was, in his opinion, a need for a more durable finish. Commissioner Bogucki commented that there is abundant evidence that the proposed wood slat siding will be sufficiently durable., and Chairman Jensen noted that there is definitely an aesthetic consideration. The Building Inspector responded to a question by Commissioner Grosshans relative to fire resistant material requirements stating that such requirements depend entirely upon the establishment of fire zones which the City of Brooklyn Center does not have. He commented that the exterior finish proposed by the applicant is allowed by the ordinance and there is nothing in the ordinance which prohibits the construction of the proposed building. Chairman Jensen then called for a vote on the motion. Those voting in favor: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Grosshans, Bogucki, Ditter, Foreman and Scott. Those voting against: none. Motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 71031 submitted by Bermel Smaby. The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who stated that the applicant was seeking revised site and building plan approval, and that the application was originally approved on September 2, 1971, for a three story, 13,200 square foot office building. He noted that the revised application is a request for approval for a two story, 10,666 square foot office building with 54 parking spaces provided, meeting the ordinance parking requirements. He further explained some revisions the staff had made relative to design of the parking lot and he commented that provisions should be made for accessibility to handicapped persons as required by the State Fire Marshal 's regulations. Chairman Jensen recognized representatives of the applicant who offered comments relative to the proposed change in the site and building plan. Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Ditter to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71031 submitted by Bermel Smaby Realty, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. All mechanical equipment located on the roof shall be adequately screened; 2. Whenever there is any mechanical equipment located on the roof, there shall be a stair leading to a scuttle in the roof and such stair, scuttle, railings, etc. , shall comply with the requirements of the State Building Code; 3. That an exterior lighting plan detailing fixtures and light intensity be submitted for staff approval; 4a That an opaque fence four foot high shall be located along the noth property line extending from 15 feet inside the east line to 15 feet inside the west line; 1 1 1 -4- 5. Utility and drainage 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 codes; 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; 8. State Fire Marshal's rules and regulations governing public buildings in providing accessibility and usability features for physically handicapped persons shall be observed. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 71075 submitted by Brooklyn Center industrial Park, IuC. , requesting approval of a Registered Land Survey. The item was introduced by the Secretary who commented that the applicant is seeking approval of a Registered Land Survey which would subdivide Outlot C, Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Plat, into two tracts of land. Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Steve Krogness, representative of the applicant, and asked for the reasons for the request. Mr. Krogness responded that approval of the Registered Land Survey is sought for purposes of division of ownership for finance and mortgage purposes at this time, and that the financing contains appro- priate release provisions to assure control, The Director of Public works offered comments relative to the City's concern that, if the Registered Land Survey is approved, it will not serve as a detriment to the proper subdivision of the land in the future, considering especially possible roadway development by the Highway Department or the City. Mr. Krogness stated that the applicant had submitted a letter to the City indicating that approval of the proposed Registered Land Survey would in no way inhibit or impair the development of the area to its highest and best use for the community. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Grosshans, seconded by Commissioner Foreman, to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71075 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:30 P.M. and reconvened at 9:50 P.M. The next item of business was reconsideration of Planning Commission Application No. 71050 submitted by Topeka Inn Management, requesting a variance from the height requirements of the sign ordinance. The item was introduced by the Secretary who noted that the Commission had recommended approval of the application recommending 1 1 1 a height variance of 60 feet at its November 18, 1971 meeting and that the Council, at its December 6, 1971 meeting had referred the application back to the Commission, in that the applicant had verbally requested consideration of a variance which would permit a sign at least 80 feet in height. The Secretary explained that it was the consensus of the Council that a variance permitting a 60 foot sign was adequate and could be justified in this instance given the following considerations: 1. The potential patrons of the motel are comprised mainly of itinerant, out of town motorists who are unfamiliar with the area; 2. Primary patronage of the motel will be realized during the evening and night time hours; 3. The velocity and volume of freeway traffic merits special consideration relative to the identification of and the access to the motel; 4. The location of the motel and topography of the area presents certain problems relative to the use of a freestanding sign to identify the motel. The Secretary presented recent sight-distance data acquired by the applicant and verified by members of the City staff who were present when the material was prepared. He noted that the City Council had examined the data. Commissioner Grosshans left the table at 9:55 P.M. Chairman Jensen commented that the evidence showed that a 60 foot high sign could be seen for some distance and that an 80 foot sign did not appear to significantly enhance the distant sighting and identification of the sign. He then polled members of the Commission as to their opinion of the applicant's proposal and determined that it was the consensus of the Commission that a 60 foot sign adequately fulfilled the purpose of such a sign. Motion by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Scott to re-affirm the Planning Commission's action of November 18, 1971, to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71050 as amended, recommending a height variance of 60 feet. Upon a vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Ditter, Foreman, and Scott. Those voting against: none. The motion carried. (Commissioner Grosshans was not present at the time of the vote.) The Secretary next explained that the Council had denied, on December 6, 1971, Planning Commission Application No. 71071 submitted by Developers Diversified, noting that the standards for granting a variance from the ordinance had not been met. He further stated that the Council had approved a motion to advise the Planning Commission that, should the applicant appeal the staff interpretation of the Sign Ordinance defining the proposed sign as a roof sign, it is the majority opinion of the Council that the appli- cant's proposed front wall design, including the sign, appears to be an integral part of the wall, rather than a part of the roof structure. He stated that the Council also noted that the mansard like structure of the front wall design does not extend around the building. 1 1 1 -6- Commissioner Grosshans returned to the meeting at 10:30 P.M. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the intent of the ordinance, the present interpretation of the ordinance, and the ramifications of concurring with the applicant's appeal. Chairman Jensen commented that should the appeal be granted, with the ordinance left unchanged, then the staff might be confronted with a variety of future problems. He stated a precedent would definitely be established, and that serious consideration should be given to the basic provisions of the ordinance. Commissioner Bogucki stated that it was important to fully consider the impact on the staff in the future, should the granting of the appeal be a precedent. Further discussion ensued regarding the plans submitted by the applicant as well as the definition of mansard roof design. Motion by Commissioner Grosshans, seconded by Commissioner Foreman to inform the City Council that, relative to the Council's action of December 6, 1971, in the matter of Developers Diversified, it is the consensus of the Planning Commission that the applicant's proposed front wall design, including the sign, appears to be an integral part of the wall, rather than part of the roof structure; and, that the Commission recognizes that the staff interpretation is based upon the definition of a roof line as stated in Section 34-110 of the City Ordinances, and is not an arbitrary ruling of the staff. The motion carried unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Foreman and seconded by Commissioner Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:10 P.M. J 7 Chairma