Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 09-12 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Pro Tem Boeck at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Pro Tem Graydon Boeck, Commissioners Stephen Erdmann, Rex Newman, and Dianne Reem were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Commissioners Tim Willson, Sean Rahn and John Whitehead were absent and excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — AUGUST 28, 2002 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to approve the minutes of the August 28, 2002 meeting as submitted. The motion passed. Commissioner Erdmann abstained as he was absent. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Pro Tem Boeck explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. I APPLICATION NO. 2002 -015 (SPECTACULAR ELECTRONIC ADVERTISING) Chair Pro Tem Boeck introduced Application No. 2002 -015, a request for a Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow certain signs at Brookdale Center to exceed the number, height, area and display features authorized as part of the Brookdale Planned Unit Development and the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 9 -12 -02 for Application No. 2002 -015 attached.) A Planned Unit Development rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) to PUD /C -2 of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center was approved by the City Council under Resolution No. 99 -37 on March 8, 1999 (Planning Commission Application No. 99001). . Mr. Warren explained that Condition No. 7 of the PUD approval states that the plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances with the exception of allowing two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along T.H. 100. The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development amendment in order to be allowed to erect: 9 -12 -02 Page 1 1. Two 3 -sided freestanding signs to be located along T.H. 100, each of which would be 55 ft. high, approximately 650 sq. ft. in area per face, contain a flashing/chasing or motion message and may also contain off premise advertising. 2. One 3 -sided freestanding sign (to replace the existing freestanding sign) located on County Road 10 at the Northway Drive entrance, which would be 32 ft. high, approximately 281 sq. ft. in area, contain a flashing/chasing or motion message and may also contain off premise advertising. He further explained that the City's Sign Ordinance regulates the type, number, structure, size, location, height, lighting and the erection and maintenance of all outdoor signs and sign structures within the city. The Sign Ordinance allows Brookdale outdoor signery. Brookdale is entitled to one freestanding sign along each street frontage that exceeds 400 ft. Each sign cannot exceed 250 sq. ft. in area and 32 ft. in height. Brookdale's PUD rezoning authorized two freestanding signs along T.H. 100 not to exceed 320 sq. ft. in area. He explained that the Planning Commission report at that time cited the fact that the amount of frontage Brookdale had on T.H. 100 exceeded 3,500 lineal feet and it seemed reasonable to allow two freestanding signs along T.H. 100. The size of Brookdale and the unique nature of the regional shopping center justified allowing two 320 sq. ft. signs along T.H. 100 rather than one 250 sq. ft. sign. He added that signery proposals for PUD's are generally not part of the development plans. Modifications can be considered provided they are consistent with the PUD approval and are appropriate given mitigating circumstances that are offset by the plans of the development proposal. Mr. Warren described the modifications to the PUD or the Sign Ordinance that must be made in order to approve the application that included the following: 1.- Allow a three faced sign which by Sign Ordinance definition is considered three separate signs. The applicant's request is for, in effect, nine signs at three separate locations that are only allowed to have a single sign. It should be noted that a two faced (back to back) sign is considered a single sign provided the interior angle formed between the sides of the sign do not exceed 15 degrees. 2. Allow a flashing sign to accommodate the chasing message or motion sign proposed for the lower portion of the sign containing the running message. 3. Allow an approximate 650 sq. ft. sign area (per face) rather than the 320 sq. ft. sign area for the two signs along T.H. 100, which were allowed by the PUD approval. 4. Allow 55 ft. high signs rather than the maximum 32 ft. high signs along T.H. 100 which are authorized by the Sign Ordinance. 9 -12 -02 Page 2 5. Allow an approximate 281 sq. ft. sign area (per face) rather than the 250 sq. ft. sign area for the proposed new sign at the County Road 10/Northway Drive entrance. 6. Allow for the potential that these signs would include off premise advertising (or a billboard) as proposed by the applicant and prohibited under the Sign Ordinance. i Mr. Warren then reviewed a draft resolution and considerations for approval or denial of the application. Commissioner Newman inquired about the sign at Cass Screw Company along Highway 100 and France Avenue North. Mr. Warren responded that the sign is considered a non - conforming roof sign and no advertising can be on the sign that is not related to the business on the site. Commissioner Newman also asked for further clarification on what signs, including temporary project signs, are allowed under the PUD and asked for a definition of off premise advertising signs that are prohibited under Chapter 34 -140. Mr. Warren reviewed what signs are approved under the PUD approved under Planning Commission Application No. 99001 and explained what types of signs are prohibited under the Sign Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2002 -015 There was a motion by Commissioner Erdmann, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2002 -015 at 8:52 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Pro Tem Boeck called for comments from the public. Mr. Theodore J. Meyer, Attorney at Law, on behalf of the applicant, Spectacular Electronic Advertising, stated the community vitality, increased property values and jobs are issues to be focused on when reviewing the applicant's request. He stressed they are applying for a three sided sign where one side would be facing the shopping center with the other two facing the highway. He added that the applicant believes it is appropriate to have a larger scale sign that will really impact the public and make the shopping center more visible and accessible to the public. Mr. Meyer stated that the applicant has talked to MNDOT and they do not feel this type of sign causes any potential traffic hazards. He continued by stating that Brookdale is unique and there is no other comparable site in the City with which to compare for necessary and desirable signs. Chair Pro Tem Boeck stated that from Brookdale's beginning, it was always anticipated that their signery would be minimal. He added that most people do not do impulse shopping at Brookdale, which is what these signs would attract. He believes that the current sign requirements meet the needs of directing and identifying "when you have arrived" at Brookdale. Mr. Meyer responded that this sign allows businesses an opportunity to advertise their servicesibusiness. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2002 -015 9 -12 -02 Page 3 CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2002 -015, at 9:07 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair Pro Tern called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Newman stated that he is not bothered by the three faced sign but believes that this proposal is too far removed from the PUD approved and that any changes to allow signs as proposed should be initiated by the City Council by giving clear direction to make such changes. Commissioner Erdmann added that the ordinance definitely prohibits signs of this nature and a sign like this is more like a billboard than an identification sign. He also questioned the comment by the applicant that this means of advertising is needed by the tenants at Brookdale since other malls of this size have less signs and attract the public Further discussion ensued among Planning Commission members regarding proposed language for a resolution that would recommend denial of the applicant's request. ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -04 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002 -04 Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2002 -015 submitted by Spectacular Electronic Advertising, a resolution recommending denial. The motion passed unanimously. The City Council will consider the recommendation at its September 23, 2002 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that this application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. OTHER BUSINESS The September 26, 2002, Planning Commission meeting has been cancelled. There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Erdmann, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass 9 -12 -02 Page 4