HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 03-30 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the
Planning Commission of the City of
Brooklyn Center in the County of
Hennepin and State of Minnesota
March 30, 1972
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman
Robert Jensen at 8:00 P.M.
Roll Call: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Foreman, Scott,
Gross and Engdahl. Also present were: Director of Public Works
James Merila, Chief Building Inspector Jean Murphey, and Adminis-
trative Assistants Blair Tremere and Daniel Hartman.
Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of business
was Planning Commission application No. 72018 submitted by R. W.
Steiner. The Secretary explained that the applicant had submitted
a memo stating that he would be unable to attend the meeting and
desired to table the application until the April 6, 1972 meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by commissioner Gross,
to table Application No. 72018 submitted by R. W. Seiner until
the April 6, 1972 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners Bogucki and Grosshans arrived at 8:05 P.M.
The next item of business was Planning Commission Application
No. 72017 submitted by Daryl McCarthy. The item was introduced
by the Secretary who stated that the applicant was requesting a
variance from Section 15-104 to permit subdivision using metes and
bounds description. He stated that the tract of land to be
divided is 90 feet wide and 433 feet long extending from woodbine
Lane on the sough to 73rd Avenue on the north. He further noted
that the northerly lot has a one story dwelling and detached garage
which is occupied by the owner and that the new lot would be 95
feet by 170 feet with 16,150 square Loot area.
The Secretary noted that the proposed lots meet all the require-
ments for single family dwelling sites and that approval would be
consistent with previous Planning Commmission action. He stated
that the apparent hardship appears to be that the requirements
for division by platting would be unduly restrictive.
Chairman Jensen noted that the Commission was sitting as a
Board of Adjustment and Appeals and recognized the owner of the land,
Mr. Anderson, 1607 - 73rd Avenue North. A brief discussion ensued
relative to the application.
Motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded by Commissioner Scott,
to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72017,
submitted by Daryl McCarthy. Motion passed unanimously.
The Secretary next introduced Planning Commission Application
No. 72019 submitted by Federal Lumber Company and explained the
applicant is requesting site and building plan approval for a
42 foot by 60 foot addition to the eXisting joist shop. He noted
that the proposed building would be open on three sides and would
consist of steel columns and steel roof. He stated that the building
will be used to house precision saws for cutting dimensioned lumber
used in making wood roof trusses.
Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Carlson, representing the appli-
cant, and a discussion ensued relative to the site of the building
and the applicant's proposal that the building would never be
enclosed with walls.
1
1
1
-2-
Motion by Commissioner Grosshans, seconded by Commissioner
Foreman, to recommend approval of Planning Commission A pplication
No. 72019 submitted by Federal Lumber Company subject to the
condition that the building will never be enclosed with walls.
Motion passed unanimously.
The next item of business was Planning Commission Application
No. 72023 submitted by Signcrafter's Inc. Chairman Jensen noted
that the Commission was again acting as a Board of Adjustment and
Appeals.
The Secretary explained the applicant is requesting a variance
from Section 35-40 (2a) to permit a freestanding sign 30 feet in
height to be located at the Union 76 Station at 2000 - 57th Avenue
North. He noted that the applicant proposes to replace an
existing freestanding sign with a 30 foot high sign not to exceed
90 square feet in area.
The Secretary further stated that the applicant is permitted,
by ordinance, a 24 foot high sign and that the existing sign is
approximately 16 feet high.
Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Jack Lawrence, a repre-
sentative of the applicant, who commented that the applicant felt
a higher sign was needed so the station could be more readily
identifiable, particularly from Highway 100. He stated that given
the design of the off ramps from Highway 100, as well as the high
speed of the traffic on the highway, potential customers were unable
to locate the station.
Chairman Jensen then asked what the stated hardship was as
grounds for requesting a variance. Mr. Lawrence responded that the
applicant and the station owner perceived the hardship in that
more business would be realized if the station were more readily
identifiable with a higher sign. He stated that the applicant
wanted to improve the image of the station and increase the
visibility given the location and design of the Highway 100 off-
ramp which was perceived as being the main problem.
Chairman Jensen then noted that none of the notified neighboring
property owners were present. He further stated that the applicant
had submitted. no documentative evidence indicating that the present
sign or even a sign of a permitted height was inadequate, as well
as any evidence indicating that the proposed height was necessary.
Mr. Lawrence responded that the applicant had initially
determined that a sign of 30 to 35 feet in height was needed and
that the Union oil Company representatives had specified that they
wanted more exposure. He stated that extension documentation such
as sight-distance data would be expensive.
Commissioner Gross stated that in similar situations, applicants
had submitted field research data which could be accomplished with
pictures and sighting from a lift truck. Commissioner Foreman
inquired whether the staff could meet with the applicant should
such a research procedure be pursued. .
The Secretary responded that it was unclear whether anything
would be accomplished with this type of research, in that the basic
question of whether the station was a neighborhood facility, or a
regional facility had not been determined. He stated that each type
of facility has different needs particularly with regard to
identification, and that it wa# the staff feeling the station was a
successful operation,.
1
1
1
-3-
Commissioner Bogucki stated that he agreed, and that for the
tack of formal documented evidence, it was unclear that the applicant
had a hardship for requesting the variance.
A discussion ensued relative to the question of whether the
station was regional or local in nature and whether it was identified
with the Northbrook Center itself, which had a higher identification
sign. Commissioner Foreman stated that the station represents a
different situation than a store in the Brookdale complex, for
example, and thus it appeared the owner felt he needed his own
separate adequate identification. Mr. Lawrence commented that the
owner did feel he needs the sign to continue and expand the successful
operation of the station.
Chairman Jensen stated that it was essential that documented
evidence be submitted indicating that the allowed 24 foot sign
would not be adequate, and that a variance was required for adequate
identification.
Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner
Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Bogucki, to table Planning
Commission Application No. 72023 submitted by Signcrafter's Inc. ,
to give the applicant the opportunity to develop and submit data
substantiating the alleged hardship. Motion passed unanimously.
The next item of business was consideration of Planning
Commission Application No. 72028 submitted by The Dietrich Company.
The Secretary explained that the applicant was requesting a
variance from Section 34-140 to permit two frees+-aric��cog �d�n#ifa c-ai'1on
signs at the entrance t.o, 1-hv towlak<,"aa project.
He noted that the sign ordinance was recently amended to permit
cluster developments involving not less than 36 dwelling units to
have one freestanding identification sign at each major entrance
not to exceed a total of two signs.
Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Warren Olson, a representative
of the applicant, who stated that the basis of the applicant's
request was that the double sign should be part of the overall
aesthetic treatment of the project, and that since the applicant
would have but one entrance, rather than the two initially proposed,
the suggested dual signs were needed for adequate identification.
Mr. Olson further commented that it was the applicant's under-
standing that when the site and building plans were approved
exclusive of any signery, that the signs indicated on the site
plan would be approved through the variance procedure.
Chairman Jensen then inquired as to whether any of those
neighboring property owners notified of the hearing were present.
He recognized Mr. Dale Magnuson of 4830 - 71st Avenue North and
Mr. Bob Kneefe of 4836 - 71st Avenue North, who stated that they
did not feel the applicant's proposed two signs would be detrimental
to the neighborhood in that they appeared to be well designed.
Extensive discussion ensued wherein Commissioner Scott stated
that the desire for a particular aesthetic treatment did not
constitute a hardship as grounds for granting a variance.
Commissioner Gross recalled s prior application submitted by
Chippewa Park Apartments for a variance from the same section of
the ordinance and stated that the present application should be
required to comply with the ordinance provisions, unless a unique-
ness constituting a hardship could be shown.
1
1
II
-4-
Commissioner Bogucki stated that he disagreed and that, given
the tasteful aesthetic design of the proposed signs, the applicant
should be accommodated and granting the variance should be recommender
Commissioner Grosshans stated that while possibly the ordinance
provision should be reviewed, it appeared that the present appli-
cant had not shown a hardship or grounds meeting the criteria
required by the ordinance for granting a variance.
Chairman Jensen then inquired whether the Commission felt the
ordinance provision should be reviewed and possibly amended, and
he then polled the members.
Commissioner Engdahl stated that further review of the ordinance
was merited. Commissioner Gross stated that the staff and Commission
had recently reviewed the ordinance provisions and a determination
had been made. He stated that further review could be an endless
process until it was determined at what point the definition and
limits of the ordinance had been set. Commissioner Scott stated
that there appeared to be no basis for granting a variance for the
present application and that there appeared to be no grounds for
further re-examination of the ordinance, other than to tailor it
to a specific situation.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he felt further review of
the ordinance was merited, and that the present application seemed to
be indicative that the ordinance did not adequately comprehend
aesthetic considerations of identification signery. Commissioner
Grosshans stated that while he would be willing to review the
ordinance provisions, he was not convinced that it would accomplish
much more than attempting to structure the provisions for a
particular application.
Commissioner Bogucki stated that he felt the ordinance should
be reviewed in that the term "one major entrance" was unclear and
that further research was needed to better define the requirements
for identification signery. Chairman Jensen agreed and stated
that further attention could be given to the specific provisions
of the sign ordinance.
There was a motion by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by
Commissioner Foreman to table Application No. 72428 to allow the
staff and Commission to review the provisions of the sign ordinance,
particularly those relating to identification signery for multi-
residential complexes.
Further discussion ensued wherein the Secretary stated that
the ordinance clearly provided that complexes such as the applicant's
having one major entrance were permitted one freestanding identifi-
cation sign. He further stated that there was no evidence that the
ordinance created an undue hardship for the developer relative to
the quality aesthetic design of the entire project. He cited
examples of other multi-residential complexes which had but one
major entrance and had complied with the ordinance provisions.
He further commented that while the City was most concerned
with the quality aesthetic treatment of the applicant's project,
the basic question was whether the applicant should have an
additional freestanding identification sign.
He noted that there was little evidence that the applicant
had pursued the aesthetic treatment of the project within the
permitted use 4mf the sign o dinance, in that only the concept
i
1
1
-5
incorporating two signs had ever been indicated by the developer
on his site and building plans.
The Secretary further stated that the recent amendment of the
particular section of the sign ordinance reflected the concern of
the staff, Commission and Council for the signery aesthetics of such
multi-residential complexes.
Commissioner Gross stated that the Commission should vote on
the application as presented, considering whether the criteria for
granting a variance had been met, rather than tabling the application.
He commented that a review of ordinance provisions should be treated
as a separate matter.
Commissioner Bogucki stated that there was a need to review
the signery provisions of the ordinance, and that further research
was needed relative to the applicability of those provisions to
multi-residential complexes. He stated that it was evident the
present application could not be resolved via variance procedures
and that tabling it would not hinder the development of the project.
Chairman Jensen then called for a vote on the motion to table.
Voting in favor were: Commissioners Bogucki, Foreman and Engdahl.
Voting against were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Scott, Gross
and Grosshans. The motion failed.
Following further discussion, there was a motion by
Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Gross, to recommend
denial of Planning Comnti.ssion Application No. 72026, noting that
the criteria for granting a variance had not been met. Voting
in favor were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Gross, Grossh s
and Scott. Voting against: Commissioners Engdahl"%fd&���?'0//_
Bogucki, who noted his feeling hat the ordinance ..
g provisions need (j� �,_�� 72
re-examination, especially as they apply to the present appli_catioh: 4,
The motion passed.
The next item of business was Planning Commission Application
No. 72031 submitted by Gene Anderson. The Secretary explained that
the applicant was requesting site plan approval for the rehabilitation
of the service station at 57th and Lilac Drive. He noted that
concrete curbing would be installed and the driveways would be
re-surfaced. He stated the owner of the property is in the dry-wall
business and the building would house the office and storage space
for one truck.
He further stated that the subject property is zoned C-1,
Service/Office District, and that a contractor's offices are a
permitted use.
Chairman Jensen recognized the applicant who responded to a
question by Commissioner Bogucki that there would be no outside
storage of equipment or supplies. The applicant further stated
that he intended to refinish the exterior of the building after
the interior has. been refurbished.
Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner
Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Foreman, to recommend approval of
Planning Commission Application No. 72031 submitted by Gene
Anderson. Motion passed unanimously.
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:25 P.M. and resumed at
9:40 P.M.
1
1
1
-6-
The next item of business was consideration of Planning
Commission Application No. 72032 submitted by Transcontinental
Development Corporation. The item was introduced by the Secretary
who stated the applicant is requesting site and building plan approval
for a one story shopping center with 140,000 square feet of gross
floor area. He noted that parking for 280 cars were provided.
He noted that there were several current applications regarding
the development of the 69th and Humboldt Avenues North area, and
stated that they represented the potential for a large commercial
development.
Relative to the present application, he noted that there were
several matters regarding drainage and access which needed to be
resolved with the developer before a permit could be issued.
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 considering participation in the
development of the subject parcel.
Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Dave Miller, a representativE
of the applicant, and Mr. Johnson, a representative of the architect.
Mr. Miller stated that the applicant had conducted a preliminary
market study and had determined the intent of a number of parties
representing a 60,6 occupancy of the convenience center.
Mr. Johnson discussed the site and building plans and indicated
that an easement would be granted for fature installation of a
sidewalk. He also stated that a driveway at the 69th Avenue end
of the project could serve any eventual neighboring development-
He noted that the traffic lanes in the loading area to the east
of the building would be designated one way so as to facilitate
"parallel" unloading of large vehicles.
The Director of Public Works commented that the rear area was
too narrow and should be one-way until any development on the
property to the east had been undertaken. He stated that a curbline
along the east property line should be provided so as to prohibit
vehicles from driving out onto the neighboring vacant land to the
east.
He suggested that the installation of permanent curbing along
the east property line might be deferred, pending the possible
development of the property to the west. He continued that an
interim curb should be required, such as rolled bituminous curbing,
to keep vehicles from driving onto the adjacent land.
In response to a comment by the Chief Building Inspector
relative to the exterior treatment of the building, namely, the
indicated canopy and the signery, Mr. Johnson stated that a painted
split face concrete block would be utilized and that any signery
would conform with the code.
In response to a question by Mr. Bogucki . relative to drainage,
the Director of Public Works stated he was currently working with
the applicant and that some revisions were necessary. He also
noted the staff was in consultation with the applicant relative
to utility plans.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the access on 69th Avenue
North and the curb cut near the gas station to the north. The
Director of Public Works commented that the staff was concerned
with the possibility of traffic through the station property to
1
1
1
-7-
the access on 69th Avenue, and that some realignment might be requiree
Commissioner Bogucki stated his concern with the close proximity
of the northern curb cut on Humboldt Avenue to the gas station
and suggested that the applicant consider moving the cut to the
south, given the increasing traffic situation at the 69th and
Humboldt intersection.
Chairman Jensen inquired about the status of the 40 foot
"Tract C" at the south end of the property.
The Secretary stated that the Council had approved the
Registered Land Survey for the property on August 5, 1970, noting
that the 40 foot tract was reserved for possible use for access
to the easterly eight acres.
The Director of Public Works commented that the applicant
should be required to formally provide driveway and utility ease-
ments at Tract C, not only to clarify the status of the Tract, but
also to facilitate future consideration of possible development of
the property to the east.
In response to a question by Commissioner Scott, Mr. Johnson
stated that the applicant would provide a scuttle to the roof
from one of two utility rooms within the convenience center
building.
Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner
Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Gross, to recommend approval
of Planning Commission Application No. 72032 submitted by Trans-
continental Development Corporation, subject to the following
conditions;
1. Utility 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;
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.
4. Sidewalk easements along Humboldt and 69th Avenues
North will be provided;
5. Required installation of permanent curbing along the
east property line may be deferred for 3 years, pending the
development of the property to the east, subject to
the following conditions:
a. Notwithstanding the above conditions, the City
may require the installation of curbing at any
earlier time if deemed necessary;
b. During the interim period, temporary bituminous
roll curbing will be installed along the east
property line;
1
1
1
c. If during this period of time the adjacent area
should develop with a plan that would not require
the curb, and the City approves that plan, the City
could waive the curb requirements in these areas;
6. The applicant will consult with the staff relative
to the possible relocation of the northerly curb
cut on Humboldt Avenue North;
7. A roof-deck will be provided on the canopy so as to
make the canopy facing a part of the wall structure;
8. Driveway and utility easements will be provided on
Tract C at the southerly boundary of the property, and
documents setting forth the said easements will be
subject to review by the City Engineer;
9. Provision will be made for adequate trash disposal for
the entire convenience center;
10. 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.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners Engdahl and Gross left the table at 10:20 P.M.
The next item of business was Planning Commission Application
No. 72029 submitted by John Horbal. The application was introduced
by the Secretary who stated the applicant was requesting site and
building plan approval for a neighborhood convenience center con-
sisting of three stores. Ke stated that stores one and two will
house service type occupancy and store three would be a retail
grocery outlet. He noted that the application was almost
identical with Planning Commission Application No. 68025 which
was approved on June 6, 1968. He further noted that adequate
parking had been provided.
Chairman Jensen recognized the applicant who stated the size
of the building would be approximately 4,400 square feet.
The Director of Public Works noted that there is a need for
further work relative to drainage and utility plans and he noted
that no berming was indicated on the plans submitted.
The Secretary commented that adequate trash collection
facilities should be stipulated, including an approved enclosure.
A brief discussion ensued relative to the location of the enclosure.
A discussion ensued relative to the indicated landscaping
and the Director of Public Works responded to a question by Chair-
man Jensen that underground sprinkling would be required for the
green area, including the boulevard.
Following further discussion, there was a motion by
Commissioner Grosshans, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recom-
mend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72029 sub-
mitted by John Horball,� subject to the following conditions:
1
1 'I
-9-
1. An approved trash enclosure shall be provided at
the north side of the food store;
2. All mechanical units located on the roof shall be
enclosed by an approved screen and a stair or a
fixed ladder leading to a scuttle in the roof housing
such equipment shall be provided to make such
equipment safely accessible;
3. The drainage and utility plans are subject to the
City Engineer's approval;
4. The building plans are subject to the Building
Inspector's approval with respect to applicable
building codes;
5. 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
installation of the site improvements as designated
on the plans submitted;
6. That a sidewalk easement will be provided on 69th and
Humboldt Avenues North;
7. That landscaping plans shall be revised to include
6 inch trees rather than the two inch trees indicated.
The motion passed unanimously.
In further business, the Secretary noted that Mr. R. D. Taafe
was present and asked Mr. Taafe to discuss the status of his pending
application, No. 72002, with the Commission.
The Secretary explained that another application had recently
been submitted for the development of the same property, and that
the new application was accompanied by documentation indicating the
applicant was, in fact, the bonafide purchaser of the subject
property.
Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Taafe who briefly discussed
the status of the application and stated that he and his associates
had had every intent to develop the property but were delayed by
the efforts of other parties. He noted that he had submitted a
letter to the City Manager outlining the situation relative to .the
proposed development of the property.
Following a brief discussion, Chairman Jensen determined that
it was the consensus of the Commission that Planning Commission
Application No. 72002, submitted by R. D. Taafe, will be considered
withdrawn, unless acceptable documentation is presented to the City
prior to the April 6, 1972, meeting, substantiating that Mr. Taafe
is, in fact, the bonafide owner and/or developer of the subject
property. Mr. Taafe stated he had no objection to this stipulation.
Motion by Commissioner Grosshans, seconded by Commissioner
Scott, to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously. The
Planning Commission meeting adjourned at,-1-0:55 P.M.
Chairma