Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 09-11 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 11 , 1980 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chair- man William Hawes at 7:39 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Theis, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Commissioners Malecki and Simmons were unable to attend. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 28, 1980 Commissioner Erickson pointed out two corrections, one relating to the roll call and another relating to comments by Harry Kiel on page 2. Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve the minutes of the August 28, 1980 meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Theis, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Lucht. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 80033 (A.F.I.A. Associates) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for a variance from Section 34-140:2:1 (4) to allow a 25 sq. ft, real estate sign advertising space for lease at the Brookdale Six Office Building located at 5901 John Martin Drive. He reviewed the material contained in the staff report for the application. (See Planning Commission information sheet for Application No. 80033 attached) . Following presentation of the staff report, Commissioner Theis asked whether the Sign Ordinance would allow A.F.I.A. to have a sign advertising space available on . the boulevard. The Secretary answered that no such sign would be permitted although one does exist at present. Chairman Hawes pointed out that if the road proposed in the Charlson Traffic Study to run from Earle Brown Drive to Shingle Creek Parkway had been constructed, theA.FI.A, building would be much closer to a public street. Following a brief discussion of the provisions of the Sign Ordinance, the Secretary pointed out that excess right-of-way was not considered grounds for approving a variance for a larger real estate sign for the Beach Condominium complex. Regarding possible options to the current ordinance requirement, the Secretary stated that a 16 sq. ft. limit could be considered as opposed to the 5 sq. ft. limit in light of the fact that directional signs are limited to 16 sq. ft. He stated that another possibility was to give building owners the option of advertising space through a freestanding sign. Commissioner Lucht commented that the option to use freestanding signs could lead to such signs being placed all over the City. Chairman Hawes and Commissioner Erickson both pointed out that a continuous vacancy could occur in the case of larger buildings and the community would be left with what amounted to be a large permanent sign. Chairman Hawes stated that he preferred a change in the City's Ordinance to granting a variance. The Secretary pointed out that--if the Planning Commission feels the current ordinance is fair, though restrictive, he could see no difference between the present application and that of the variance-request of the Beach Condominiums. 9-11-80 -1- PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes opened the meeting 'for a public hearing. Mr. Tom McCoy, a member of A. F. I. A. Associates at 5901 John Martin Drive, addressed the Commission. He stated that signery has been very important in advertising the availability of space at their building. He stated that a larger sign which was up for a couple of weeks before it was ordered down did result in some inquiries; but that there had been almost no inquiries since they have been required to rely on the smaller sign permitted by the ordinance. He also pointed out an example of a larger building in New Brighton which is located next to the Interstate. He stated that although this building was vacant only recently and has used no other form of advertising besides its sign facing the Freeway, it has filled up already while the smaller A. F. I. A. building is still struggling to find a tenant. In answer to a question from Chairman Hawes, Mr. McCoy stated there are five offices in the A.F.I.A. building. Mr. Roger Newstrum, of Brooklyn Center Industrial--Park, stated that the section of the Sign Ordinance relating to real estate signs has created problems for building owners in Brooklyn Center. He agreed with the staff suggestion that the ordinance be examined for possible revisions and offered to provide the Commission with relevant information if it is desired. Mr. Janis Blumentals, an architect often employed by the Industrial Park stated that he supported the requested variance and a change in the City's Ordinance. He suggested that something should be worked out allowing for signery on the basis of the distance from the right-of-way and the type of traffic (freeway, minor street, pedestrian, etc.). CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Erickson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Theis, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. In answer to Commissioner Erickson, the Secretary stated that he was not aware that any similar variance had ever been granted. Chairman Hawes asked how much time would be involved in developing an alternative ordinance for real estate signs. The Secretary answered that such a revision could be developed within 30 days depending on the direction from the Planning Commission regarding the ordinance and the variance request. There followed a lengthy discussion of various cases and of the objectives to be attained by a Sign Ordinance governing real estate signs. Commissioner Theis stated that he felt an existing building should be entitled to less signery than a newly constructed building. Commissioner Lucht commented that it could be difficult to define various types of thoroughfares and to regulate signs on the basis of these definitions. He expressed sympathy for this particular situation. (that of A.F.I.A.) , but preferred not to open the ordinance up to very large signs. Commissioner Theis inquired as to how much leasing is actually done by signage versus newspaper ads. Mr. Janis Blumentals stated that signs are very important for making people aware that there is space available in a particular location. Afterwards, prospective tenants may follow up by checking a newspaper ad. Mr. Tom McCoy of A. F. I. A. pointed out that space available signs can often be seen along the freeway and asked the Commission to look into what other com- munities do regarding real estate signs. In answer to Chairman Hawes, the Secretary stated that he was not that familiar with other Sign Ordinances, but presumed that they showed a fair amount of variation from community to community. The Secretary asked the Commission to give direction on three specific points: 9-11-80 =2- 1 . Whether or not 5 sq. ft. is adequate for existing buildings. 2. Whether freestanding real estate signs should be allowed or whether there should be an option to incorporate real estate' signery as part of a freestanding identification sign on the condition that there would be no wall signery for leasing purposes. 3. Whether the size and/or type of sign should vary based on the type of thoroughfare and distance from thoroughfares. Chairman Hawes proceeded to poll the Planning Commission on these items. Commi•s- sioners Erickson, Lucht and Manson all stated that 5 sq. ft. is too restrictive in the case of the A.F.I.A. office building. Commissioner Theis and Commissioner Manson expressed an interest in the option of using a freestanding sign closer to the boulevard. Commissioner Lucht suggested that some formula tied to distance of the building from right-of-way be considered. Regarding freestanding signs, Commissioner Theis stated that he was in favor of this option. Commissioner Manson stated that it would be undesirable to see a freestanding sign for every building along Brooklyn Boulevard. Commissioner Lucht stated that he was against the freestanding option on the grounds that it would create too much clutter. Commissioner Erickson expressed concern about clutter, but did not rule the possibility of incorporating a space-for-lease message into a freestanding identification sign. Regarding the question of making freestanding signs an option to wall signery, Commissioner Lucht preferred wall signs only. Commissioner Manson stated that a freestanding sign should be an exception, rather than the rule. Commissioner Erickson stated that building owners should have the option of either wall signs or freestanding signs, but should not be allowed both types of signs. Commission- er Theis stated that freestanding signs should be smaller than wall signs. Regarding the maximum size of signs, Commissioner Theis suggested a formula based on the wall area of the building subject to a maximum of 24 to 32 sq. ft. Com- missioner Manson stated that she preferred smaller signs and stated that she liked the time limit on larger signs. Commissioner Lucht stated that 16 sq. ft. for a wall sign should be adequate for any circumstance. Commissioner Erickson stated that 16 sq. ft. to 24 sq. ft. should be adequate for most any situation. He acknowledged that 5 sq. ft. is too small in certain cases. He added that he did not consider a time limit to be enforceable. Chairman Hawes concluded the Commission's remarks on these subjects by stating that he agreed with most of the sentiments of the Commission, but felt that freestanding signs should be looked at before being rejected. Commissioner Lucht stated that he resisted freetanding real estate signs because of the aesthetics. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 80033 (A.F.I .A. Associates) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to table Application No. 80033, a request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow a 25 sq. ft. real estate sign at the A.F.I.A. building, until staff brings back to the Planning Commission further information regarding real estate signs. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Theis, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The nation passed. The Secretary stated that he would bring back wording for directional signs and wall signs for churches as well as the information requested for real estate signs. Mr. Roger Newstrum of B.C.I .P. stated that he would also bring inform- ation for the Planning Commission's consideration if they desired it. Chairman Hawes stated the Planning Commission would appreciate any input. 9-11-80 -3- DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary reviewed for the Planning Commission, the City Council 's action regarding Commercial Partners. He explained that the Council had tabled the site plan and referred it back to the Planning Commission because there were no specific plans for a restaurant. The Secretary also explained that the parking available for the restaurant based on the current plan amounts to .only 215 parking stalls. This would not be enough, he pointed out, to meet the parking requirements fora restaurant with 300 seats upstairs and 300 banquet seats downstairs which is the amount of banquet seats requested by the City Council in their approval of the industrial revenue bonds for the Commercial Partners project. He stated that at least based on a cursory review it did not seem ._ that a variance would be recommended for such a parking deficiency. The Secretary then went on to explain that in a meeting with the principals in the restaurant and Mr. Gustafson earlier the same day, staff had been requested . to consider the banquet seats at the same formula as for public assembly, which is one space for every three seats, rather than one space for every two seats, under, the 'restaurant formula. Chairman Hawes stated that based on his experience at banquets, he could not agree with the more lenient formula. Commissioner Erickson agreed with this comment and stated that traffic to a banquet is more predictable than to a restaurant. Commissioner Lucht stated that the average is usually two persons per car, though there may be a variation from car-to-car. Commissioner Manson commented likewise. Commissioner Theis asked why the seating at the meeting room at the Holiday Inn was calculated at one space for every 200 sq. ft. The Secretary answered that he was not sure why that particular formula was chosen, but pointed out that many of the people attending those meetings would already have been covered by the parking formula for the hotel itself. He added that parking formulas are not instituted simply to ensure off-street parking, but also to control the density of building to land for various uses. Chairman Hawes stated that the ordinance. should plan for the maximum usage. Commissioner Theis stated that there would probably not be a parking problem in this parti- cular case because of the other uses providing parking on the site. He added, - ---- - however, that he did not want to change the formula for banquet seats since that might have an adverse impact on individual establishments with banquet seats. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the calculation of the parking requirements for the banquet facility should be the same as that of the restaurant, one space for every two seats. Commissioner Erickson stated that he would be unable to make the September 25, 1980 Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Erickson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Comis sioners Theis, Manson, Lucht, and Erickson. Voting against: none. The Plan- ning Commission adjourned at 9:28 p.m. C ai rman 9-11-80 -4-