HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04 PCR Member Newman introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -04
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2002 -015 SUBMITTED BY
SPECTACULAR ELECTRONIC ADVERTISING (ON BEHALF OF
BROOKDALE CENTER)
WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 99 -37 adopted on March 8, 1999,
approved a rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) to PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit Development /Commerce)
of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS, that Planned Unit Development (PUD) proposal also included
development plan approval for the expansion, redevelopment and rejuvenation of the Brookdale
Regional Shopping Center; and
WHEREAS, that approval allowed two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area
along T.H. 100 based on the uniqueness of the size, diversity of uses and significance of
Brookdale Mall. The balance of signery for the Brookdale Mall was subject to Chapter 34 of the
City Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2002 -015 requesting 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 has been submitted by Spectacular Electronic Advertising
on behalf of Brookdale Center; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on
September 12, 2002 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the Planned Unit
Development amendment were received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development
request in light of all testimony received, the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in
Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development
ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the City's Sign Ordinance
and the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission
of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2002 -015
submitted by Spectacular Electronic Advertising on behalf of Brookdale Center, be denied in
light of the following considerations:
Page 1
1. The proposed PUD amendment is not compatible with the Policy and
Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208 of the City Ordinances in
the following ways:
a. No clear and public need or benefit has been shown by the
proposal nor is there a broad public purpose evident.
b. The proposed PUD amendment does not demonstrate merit beyond
the interests of the owner or applicant.
C. The signs currently authorized for the site by the PUD and Sign
Ordinance are considered appropriate given the size, configuration,
topography and location of Brookdale Center.
2. The proposed PUD amendment is not consistent with Section 35 -355 of
the City Ordinances in the following ways:
a. The signs currently authorized for this site by the PUD and Sign
Ordinance are considered appropriate and consistent with Section
34 -100, STATEMENT OF PURPOSE in the City's Sign
Ordinance by providing necessary visual communication for
Brookdale. Additional modifications are not warranted.
b. Flashing, chasing or motion signs as proposed could create or
encourage safety problems on the streets and highways within the
City of Brooklyn Center by causing distractions to motorists.
C. Off premise advertising signs are specifically prohibited by the
Sign Ordinance. The applicant has not shown that their proposal
offers sufficient mitigating circumstances to modify this sign
limitation.
3. To allow sign modifications for the Brookdale Center that are not justified
on the basis of the standards, purposes and intent of the PUD section of
ordinance would establish an undesirable precedent that could allow other
commercial establishments to have similar signs that are contrary to the
City's Sign Ordinance.
4. The signs previously authorized for Brookdale Center are currently
competitive with other comparable regional shopping centers such as
Ridgedale, Southdale, Rosedale and the Mall of America.
Page 2
5. The modifications proposed go well beyond the scope of the PUD
amendment process, requiring a fundamental policy change in the City
Ordinances that would normally be initiated by the City Council.
Cs" -
S=tember 12, 2002
Date Chair Pro Tern
ATTEST C� • G-�-�'
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Reem and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Commissioner Boeck, Erdmann, Newman and Reem
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Page 3