Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 05-28 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 28, 1992 STUDY SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7 : 30 p.m. 2 . Roll Call 3 . Approval of Minutes - May 14 , 1992 4 . Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is 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. 5. Discussion Items a) Group Home Ordinance b) Day Care Center Ordinance C) Real Estate Sign Ordinance d) Moratorium on home occupations on Brooklyn Blvd. 6. Other Business 7.. Adjournment I I i �I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff DATE: May 27, 1992 SUBJECT: Residential Facilities Ordinance The Planning Commission has been reviewing over the past couple of study sessions a Residential Facilities Ordinance (more commonly referred to as a Group Home Ordinance) . A draft was presented at the March 26, 1992 study session which was later reviewed by City staff along with the City Attorney. Various suggestions have come forth from that particular review and we are in the process now of retyping a draft ordinance amendment for presentation to the Planning Commission at Thursday evening' s meeting. The proposed ordinance would adopt classifications for residential facilities contained in the State Statutes. Those terminologies include primarily "Residential Programs" and "Nonresidential Programs" . The definitions for these two terms would be those appearing in Minnesota Statutes and would be cited in the definition section of the Zoning Ordinance in that manner. As has been discussed, we are recommending that these types of facilities be considered only permitted uses in the various residential zoning districts. We are not recommending the use of special use permits for review and recommendation on individual proposals. Uses that would be permitted in the Rl (Single Family Residential District) would include licensed residential programs with a license capacity of six or fewer persons; licensed nonresidential programs with a licensed capacity of 12 or fewer persons; licensed day care facilities serving 12 or fewer persons; and group family day care facilities licensed under State regulations to serve 14 or fewer children. In the Multiple Family Residential zoning districts, including the R2 zoning district, we would have licensed residential programs with a licensed capacity of 7 to 16 persons; licensed nonresidential programs with a licensed capacity of 13 to 16 persons and licensed day care facilities serving from 13 through 16 persons all in accordance with the appropriate State Statute. The ordinance will go on to delete reference to child care, boarding care, maternity care, and group care facilities currently referred to as special uses in the R5 zoning district and permitted uses in the Cl zoning district. Nursing homes would continue to be special uses in the R5 zone and would be listed as permitted uses in the C1 and C2 zoning districts. • Memo Residential Facilities Ordinance Page 2 May 27 , 1992 In the definitions section of the ordinance we would be adding a definition for residential program and nonresidential program. Also, the ordinance would contain definitions for day care facility; dwelling, attached; dwelling, detached; hospital; and nursing home, rest home, or convalescent home. We are also not recommending at this time establishing the two public institutional zoning districts that had been considered previously. We will be prepared to review and discuss this matter in more detail at Thursday evening ' s meeting. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff DATE: May 27 , 1992 SUBJECT: Day Care Facilities in Retail Shopping Centers The City Manager received a letter from Clem D. Springer, President of Weis Asset Management, Inc. involving their concern regarding the prohibition in the City' s Zoning Ordinance for day care facilities to be allowed in commercial retail centers. They would like the City to reconsider this limitation and amend the City ordinances so that facilities could be permitted particularly at the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. They note that today, day care centers are frequently found in commercial zones and more specifically in retail centers in many cities. They believe our present ordinance is unnecessarily restrictive and that a good case can be made that day care centers are more appropriately located in commercial areas because of the traffic generated and the opportunity to combine the trip with other errands. They also note that the State of Minnesota very strictly regulates day care centers and the health and safety of the children. We will be prepared on Thursday evening to present and discuss the background leading to the City Council ' s adoption of an ordinance amendment a number of years ago to allow day care facilities in the C1 and C2 zoning districts. Prior to that time day care facilities had been primarily operated out of homes and in churches and schools in residential zoning districts. The day care use was more associated with a residential, rather than a commercial use of property. As part of an application presented to the City by New Horizons Day Care Centers, an ordinance amendment was adopted establishing group day care facilities as special uses in the C1 and C2 zoning districts provided they were not located on the same property as, or adjacent to, any use which is not permitted to abut R1, R2 , or R3 zoned property (such as a gasoline service station, motor vehicle repair, car wash, convenience food restaurant, eating establishments offering live entertainment, motion picture theaters, bowling alleys, sauna establishments, massage establishments, school bus garage facilities and amusement centers) . Furthermore, group day care facilities were not to be located in retail shopping centers. • • I • Memo Day Care Facilities in Retail Shopping Centers Page 2 May 27 , 1992 Also, the ordinance established various special requirements for day care facilities relating to the outside recreational areas requiring them to be appropriately separated from parking and driving areas, that the play facilities not be located in a yard abutting a major thoroughfare unless buffered, the play facility should not have an impervious surface for more than half the playground area, that the playground extend at least 60 feet from the wall of the building to an adjacent property line and not be bounded on more than two sides by parking and driving areas. It should also be noted that the Planning Commission and City Council recently considered, within the past couple of years, a request to house a day care facility in the industrial park zone. The City Council ultimately concluded that a day care facility was not appropriate in an industrial park zone and denied the requested appeal and consideration for an ordinance amendment. We believe the Planning Commission should review the day care provisions thoroughly and discuss whether or not consideration should be given for altering these provisions to allow day care facilities in currently prohibited areas. EMEEIS son WEIS ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC. EME 3601 Minnesota Drive Minneapolis,Minnesota 55435 Telephone:612-831.9060 Fax:612-831-3132 May 21, 1992 Mr. Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Humboldt Square Dear Mr. Splinter: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you and Mr. Brad Hoffman some of the concerns and opportunities that we are currently facing at Humboldt Square. The study completed for the City June 1991 by Lee Maxfield on commercial trends in Brooklyn Center pointed out the need for action in an overbuilt market. The study indicated the center is at a turning point and we need to attract additional tenants. We have had a prospective tenant approach us, about placing a 6,000 square foot daycare center on the north end of the center. The Bumper- to-Bumper store would be relocated within the center. We feel the daycare center would be very beneficial to the financial stability of the center and complement the other tenants by providing a daily flow of people whose other needs can be met at the same time. The lease has been sent to the prospective tenant for. their review. The schedule calls for a September 1, 1992 opening which is really close at hand taking into consideration the time required for the build out. The response to my initial inquiry to the planning department was that a daycare center was not permitted in Humboldt Square or any retail shopping center. Further discussion indicated that this provision in the zoning ordinance was adopted a number of years ago prior to the rapid growth of the daycare industry. Today, daycare centers are frequently found in commercial zones and more specifically in retail centers in many cities . Within the next few days, I will provide a list of cities and examples of daycare centers located in centers for your consideration. I do not see a significant difference in a drop- in child care facility which is permitted from a daycare facility with proper facilities . Our opinion is that your present ordinance is unnecessarily restrictive. In fact a good case can be made that daycare centers are more appropriately located in commercial areas because of the traffic generated and the opportunity to combine the trip with other errands. The State of Minnesota very strictly regulates daycare centers and the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LEASING AND MANAGEMENT • ' • i • health and safety of the children. We therefore respectfully request that the City review their present zoning restriction to allow daycare centers in retail centers immediately so we can deal with our prospective tenant and meet their schedule. Enclosed is an article from Commercial Property News dated April 1, 1992 that addresses the need to consider non-traditional tenants and uses to overcome the surplus of retail space and help bring centers back to being positive economic operations. You might find this article of interest also because it mentions police substations as a use. I would like to suggest with less urgency, that you review the permitted uses to consider more of the non-traditional uses . The current list of approved uses, although quite broad, is obviously out dated. The owner has also brought to my attention that there is a restriction on limiting the square footage of restaurant space to 15% of the building area. Although we do not have a prospective restaurant tenant currently, we have had discussions in the past which were clouded by this potential limitation. We have excess parking capacity in the lot and feel this restriction should be removed or reevaluated. I look forward to working with your staff, planning commission and the city council to help make Humboldt Square a more viable part of the community. I look forward to an early response. Sincerely, Weis Asset Management, Inc. r Clement D. Springer President CDS/vs Enclosure C `; D O ('� O e-. r' yr)M w R v, p CD doq e0' C CDC O .' ° rn Q pi CCD S .C' ° n CD — ° �� a ° A 1�� `r m cn .,-. O D `< m K m CD fRD G" m = o K m c o w c' r• •4 C "'S "j e0•. em•' VJ C3. Q V w CZ S CD G eU+ CD• —� Ci° G y O CD O C K .o c' cr m •••, O m m �: C^ "''� n �'S. ^� .O•. C G CD M ,�O•. C.. w �•C O m G e•. O 7 .`U w "',`�.aj' ��CD CC. CD '.m O m •�$ m < " ^ CD m CD CD Cyr CD PZ I.c. e < 0 e-. O O "'r < C O f1 r R CzJ O C CD CO P w n C_. f� Cn .:' COi� Cp "3 `G w it (D T• �' °.,�e- �V/L� pW Cr^• 1. � O �< m CD vi e�. �.Z C 'C O m ,r.••, aO+ K•• �_ V G CDK O En O co m m O r. O .+. CD K_ Q. O � m II. O m 'S m CD S A ❑,•c 00 G K o ° w -�.a r a m CD CO O f0D O ". °-•� C= &0 0' e► O � ° eC••' O C) O_ e0-. O C 7C O O W ~� O C "•.rr' D m C • m '� O O .-. O 'S3 .+ .O G �•.r w L' C ^^ O 2 CL CD w N CO w O m _ t m w � •, en a c a4 K o w a ? w o v c 0 CAD �. p' CD •G CD O w - °" M n K ° O °_.° O PS'. O .'' c- _.m .my n m c L -+ co G y�..+ T 2 U, ° ✓° m O m U r tlq = C r•. r 9 m — to C O C C r* K K w m . S C .._ - ► C a' O w v Cp �: vii a, p T CD ¢ —v ? r- O Cy C�.r•. C r. cn ti v v _� c L C m w S m v _ �. r. m.:OG G.�• .O w O O . c n Cc m CD r �"" r .L—+ r O"� O ... �,,, S O K — C• X .,. w r. p� CIq o Y C. GD C7 K w �. C: n v y C = O C9'•G m r, �_ r„ '•_ �a.r R U,' .~m...m CL p—m .-C m 7." ►.. CO '; O ff'C °'C ¢ c - O m .... O O A% ~ �• K e+ �' C O �'O K O m O fD G C C 7 - ►.rte CD w 0 a "�C "� -.vq C°CD CD K CD »�C, CO m C S V ",� y x - a. <• eK•. O G v '_•�z CD CJ e+ m K l< t9 fTl R In cn ex••. „'7 O .°". O•✓ "m„7 N e•* m V em•. ° e0-•.•<5 < O R .n_. D R :�: fn •-n�..e-' ...S O e+ ¢CD-, y: U O <"' .,j �"CD <' ,., r* C� m ..j c CD —o.0 n ego `" R V o r; o ° �. _ (DD �, K,R `° - w CD =o m aqq m �C`D � �' U1 �•� TS e•. m K .'7 G fD CD _ C CD G m C m m A O C' w ;? °q `mD a CD w-o. m c c'r CD �•O m m z l V c oa oq c o w ° 0 0 9 o CD cD C C in �e n s Can K R C. C CD n =. y oq -_:• S c: ° _i= mV - m in• 'O m --r m K S O 2r 1'11 ._ (T r(n r(9 i fD CD R C C n C ."3. e~•' m f.') e••. m K O O !Y Z 0 O m O m n o — S G m �e �'O m m m m CD D .�.� .�,. ........ z m � o c YJ z CD Z c CD- CD c D CD a m " n <D C_ O K m aq Cs w n "c7 G. m m ti m Cn O <w. r° O a o m G CD m Cl) (1'I O G o c z O "_ _ CD CD -e ct) Co CD m m C- Z.r C' - c r. C!w - _ fC v. — C f O e+ O _ ^�• .. CD C .^Z...Qq ., C' cn `. v. O C y v r• O CD 0 OZO rz n c C• COD CD ~-- =0 n w 0 m o� S ^ c R r- - Cl C O C` l<^ w O lD O r' =— J _ _ C✓ >O U. Ov.• r. O .+a m S C' '0.7.. w CD r. �' m fD U l: O v m C F �l CD x Oo m O i`J ..r D _ .•. O p a_ C:. G p, O (` C .0 n G ¢ CD �'C•C C.O.. O � �' O `r cn p� CD N C o�T u p� • fl tic o =_ w&n '< ^' c = c CD r nv oo t ° o D p Cc 0 m w o �V c c Y m e °o �; °' -� w ° C O C p- �.~_ C • K CD CD c t`1E CD CO ^ F - ° c°' o o. m r B r ..'CD O O f'. O O .�.. C R .w•. O w �• V U. CD Z O O+ .7' •� G �� G CD CD cct O T O X O O + ,, G.CD C Qq O O CD C p O O ^� CD CD p.�. O CC m c O. COD b0 ch o• 7 Z O' —n `� .m- C " c.� ... O a• C ^• Li r. ^ m S dm ,�.-,a• 0' G,C •O• o• V K' -w( v. O-Q c w CJ m K O O « = m t CD■ °— r; ^s�v °a ►; o w ^Cro o°q v, � v, , WEIS ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC. 3601 Minnesota Drive Minneapolis,Minnesota 55435 Telephone:612-831-9060 Fax:612-831.3132 DAYCARE CENTERS IN SHOPPING CENTERS* CITY CENTER NAME DAYCARE NAME 1. Maple Grove Eagle's Nest A-Z Child Care 2. Ramsey Rivers Bend Plaza A-Z Child Care 3. Minneapolis Butler Square Quality Child Care 4 . Eden Prairie Lariat Center Just for Kids S. Bloomington Loehman's Plaza Mother Goose Inn 6 . Eagan Town Center Children's World Learning Center 7 . Apple Valley Apple Valley East New Horizon Child Care 8. Oakdale Bergen Plaza Wee EduPlay (out of business) 9 . Eden Prairie Menards New Horizon Child Care 10. Burnsville Southcross New Horizon Child Care 11. Brooklyn Park Creekside Plaza New Horizon Child Care *This is just a small sample based on first hand knowledge. 5/21/92 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LEASING AND MANAGEMENT APPLICATION NO. 54039 (New Horizon Ente rprises) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for a determination that a day care center is similar in nature to other permitted uses in the C2 zoning district in order that New Horizons may establish a daycare center at the Park-Nicollet Med Center building at 6000 Earle Brown Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 84039 attached) . The Secretary added that he had received a letter from Sally Goldberg, a Licensing Consultant for the State, that New Horizons is considered a school. The Secretary stated that he had also received a copy of Department of Public Welfare Rule No. 3 governing day care centers and noted that the State regulations do not cover location. He stated that that it is a City responsibility to regulate the location of day care centers. The Secretary concluded his comments by stating that the staff do not have a big problem with a day care center locating in the Med Center building, but feel it's more appropriate that day care centers, generally, be considered as a special use in the C2 zoning district, rather than as an educational use and, therefore, a permitted use. Chairman Lucht asked whether child care was presently permitted in the C1 zoning district. The Secretary responded that child care homes, that is 24 hr. a day residences, were permitted in the C1 zoning district. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether this referred to homes used for day care. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that these were special homes where the children would live, not come to for temporary care. -3- J Commissioner Pelson asked whether the staff had a problem with day care centers locating in the C2 zoning district. The Secretary stated that he would not recommend day cares be considered a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. He stated that he didn't have any major problems with the Med Center building as an acceptable location, but felt that they should be considered a special use rather than a permitted use. He pointed out that if day care centers were considered a permitted use, they could locate anywhere within the C2 zoning district. Commissioner Bernards asked whether Med Center had been contacted on the use of the building. The Secretary stated that the staff had not talked totted Center about the day care use of the building, but that there had been negotiation between New Horizons and the Med Center and that a tentative agreement had been worked out. Commissioner Manson asked what the history of "educational uses" was in the C2 zoning district. The Secretary answered that educational uses have basically been considered to be schools. He stated that he did not feel that a day care center was primarily a school. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. Ms. Sue Dunkley, President of New Horizons Enterprises, Inc. , stated that New Horizons had 13 day care facilities, 5 of which are located in commercial zones. She stated that day care started out in residential zones, but that it has adapted to coarnercial settings. She reviewed the curriculum which the centers use with young children. Ms. Dunkley also explained that New Horizons has many certified teachers who have been nursery and elementary school teachers. She explained, regarding the playground area, that children are taken out to play in groups of 20 and that the State requires 75 sq. ft. of playground area per child that is playing. She stated that this would work out to a playground area of 1,500 sq. ft. for 20 children playing at a time. Ms. Dunkley stated that New Horizons had a problem with timing. She stated that they do not have time to rezone the property. She also stated that a determination that New Horizons was a school would not necesarily open the door to other day care centers because they cannot call themselves schools under the definition of a school used by the Department of Public Welfare. Chairman Lucht explained that the Planning Commission was not considering rezoning the property. He also stated that acting on the basis of time factors has had negative effects in the past. He asked Ms. Dunkley why, if she considered New Horizons to be a school, does she call the organization a day care operation and not a school. Ms. Dunkley stated that "day care" is used in the literature, but that the Department of Public Welfare has considered them a school for some time. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the personnel were salaried or volunteer staff. Ms. Dunkley answered that most of the staff are salaried, though there are some volunteers which they are glad to have. Commissioner Bernards stated that it was news to him that the Department of Public Welfare had begun certifying schools. Ms. Dunkley explained that the teachers are certified by the Department of Education. Chairman Lucht stated that he liked the concept of a New Horizons center at the Med Center building, but that he had problems with allowing day care centers as a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. He stated that the City would have to live with the precedent of such a decision. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he preferred not to rezone the property, but to control the day care use through a special use permit procedure. -4- Sue Dunkley asked whether she could not apply for a special use permit at this time. The Secretary stated that it would require an ordinance amendment first, possibly involving some special conditions for day care centers. Chairman Lucht then polled the Commission on their feelings regarding the application. Commissioner Ainas asked Ms. Dunkley how many of the teachers were certified. Ms. Dunkley answered that $3% of their staff was certified. Commissioner Manson stated that she would like to see the day care center at the Med Center building, but preferred that the use was a special use permit. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the City should have some control over the location of day care centers in commercial zoning districts. He stated that he also preferred a special use status for day care centers. Commissioner Sandstrom agreed, stating that he preferred a special use status and that a precedent should not be set with this appication.• Commissioner Nelson stated that he did not feel that the day care center had to be a school in order to be an educational use. He stated that he felt the day care center was an educational use and was, therefore, a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. He stated that parents can exercise control over the location of the day care center by not taking their children to a center that is in an inappropriate location. He stated that he did not have a problem with the day care center as an educational use. Commissioner Bernards inquired as to the playground area. The Secretary showed a transparency of the site plan that showed a playground to the west of the Med Center building. He noted that the playground shown on the plan was larger than would be required by the State. Ms. Dunkley explained that the State requires 75 sq. ft. of playground area per child that is outside. She added that the State regulates many other details of a day care operation. The Secretary stated that while it was necessary for the State to regulate these aspects of the operation of a day care center, it was necessary for local government to look at surrounding land uses and to make a policy judgment as to what are appropriate locations for day care centers within the City. Commissioner Malecki stated that a determination is similar to a special use permit. She pointed out that it would be possible to change the ordinance to make day care centers a special use permit. She added, however, that this facility is similar to an educational use and that a finding to that effect could be made. Chairman Lucht asked how the Planning Commission would make a determination as to which day care centers are educational uses. Commissioner Ainas stated that, as the ordinance now reads, educational uses are not defined. Mr. Bill Dunkley, an attorney for both Park Nicollet Medical Center and New Horizons Day Care centers, stated that he agreed that, if the City wanted to regulate child care, it should make day care centers a special use in the C2 zoning district. He stated that the City could still allow New Horizons to operate as an educational use and then change the ordinance. Chairman Lucht asked what was the reason for urgency. Mr. Dunkley stated that winter is the best time to open up a facility and that the cost invested- would be about $200,000. There followed a lengthy discussion regarding the procedure and the substance of the application. Commissioner Sandstrom asked why there should be unnecessary delay if the Planning Commission agreed that the proposed day care center was an acceptable use in this location. Commissioner Manson asked whether there was a mechanism to allow the applicant to fro ahead while the ordinance was being amended. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission could allow day cares as a -5- permitted use and then amend its ordinance to make them a a special use, but that this would be like closing the barn door after the cows were out. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the Commission agreed that the center was an educational use. There followed a discussion as to whether the Commission did feel the day care center was to be considered an educational use. The Secretary stated that he did not feel the Planning Commission should feel pressured to act favorably for the applicant's sake because the applicant had known about this problem since August. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 84039 (New Horizon Enterprises, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table Application No. 84039 and to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to allow State certified day care centers as a special use in the C1 and C2 zoning districts. While the motion was on the floor, there was a brief discussion regarding the timing of the application and amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for day care centers by special use permit in the C2 zoning district. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Bernards. Voting against: Commissioner Nelson. The motion passed. Commissioner Nelson stated that he felt that the use could be considered similar in nature to an educational use and, therefore, permitted in the C2 zoning district. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:35 p.m. and resumed at 9:57 p.m. Following the recess, Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he wished to change his vote on the motion to table Application No. 84039 to no. The change in vote had no effect on the outcome of the vote. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Retail Development/Interim Ordinance The Secretary introduced the first discussion item by explaining that there was concern on the part of the staff as to whether or not there is a need for future retail development within the City. He noted that there is a limited amount of C2 zoned land within the City, most of which is situated in the block bounded by Shingle Creek Parkway on the west, Summit Drive on the north, Earle Brown Drive on the east and John Martin Drive on the south. The next largest area of vacant C2 zoned land was some undeveloped parcels around 66th and West River Road and in the Lynbrook Bowl area. The concern, he stated, was that it appeared that Brooklyn Center was well served by the existing retail development and that what is located in Brooklyn Center and surrounding communities may well be enough to serve future community needs as well. He added that traffic associated with major retail developments was also somewhat of a concern as to whether existing facilities can handle this development in the area. He noted that it appears with the last retail development completed that all we are able to attract is more of the same type of retail development that more or less leads to a shifting of location and subsequent vacant buildings or tenant spaces. More retail development on existing vacant C2 land could possibly lead to an expansion of these problems. The Secretary noted that the Year 2000 Committee has briefly discussed and is -6- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84039 Applicant: New Horizon Day Care Centers Location: 6000 Earle Brown Drive Request: Determination The applicant requests that the City Council determine that day care centers in the C2 zoning district are a permitted use by virtue of being similar in nature to other uses specifically listed as permitted uses in the C2 zoning district (See Section 35-322 attached) . Section 35-322 Subsection 1j- of the Zoning Ordinance acknowledges as permitted uses: "Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses, as determined by the City Council ." Since day care centers are not expressly listed as a permitted use in the C2 zoning district, the applicant requests that a determination be made that it is "similar in nature" to expressly permitted uses. New Horizon wishes to open up a day care facility in a portion of the Park-Nicollet Med-Center building (formerly Toy City) at 6000 Earle Brown Drive. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the west by Summit Drive, on the north by Earle Brown Drive, on the east by vacant C2 zoned land, and on the south-southeast by Highway 100. The applicant's representative, Mr. William Dunkley, has submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues basically that the day care center is in fact a school and is, therefore, an educational use which is expressly permitted in the C2 zoning district under Section 35-322 Subsection lh. In fact, Mr. Dunkley refers to the operation as a school throughout hisletter. He points out on page 2 that Department of Public Welfare Rule 3, page 6(q) states: "The name 'school ' may be used only by programs having a minimum of one teacher certified by the Minnesota State Department of Education. One certified nursery school teacher must be present during the major part of the program for every 20 children." Mr. Dunkley explains that the facility at 6000 Earle Brown Drive would consist of approximately 5,600 sq. ft. of building space and an enclosed outdoor play area. It would serve 115 children age 6 months to 12 years. Hours would be 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. But; the letter nowhere states that there will be six nursery school teachers present during the "major part" (6 or more hours?) of the program. Mr. Duhk.ley 'as su;;;nitted saw correspondence with the Cities of Roseville and Mound (attached) , but has not submitted a letter from the State regarding the status of New Horizon Enterprises (the company? a location?) as a school . Staff are, therefore, at a loss to know whether the proposed facility is considered a school by the State or not. We would also point out that the example provided in Mound is for an operation to be located in a former prepschool in a residential district. This is certainly a different situation than the present case in a commercial zoning district. The letter to the Roseville City Manager is for a commercial location; however, Roseville had to amend its Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the "child care facility" in the B2 (General Commerce) district. Mr. Dunkley concludes his letter by discussing three important aspects of the operation: traffic, the playground area , and safety. Regarding traffic, he notes that the clinic is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Most day care traffic would occur before or after these hours. Regarding the outdoor play- ground area (a converted area of the parking lot west of the building) , Mr. Dunkley states that the existing opaque fence on top of the berm adjacent to Earle Brown [,;rive would remain and that the playground would be fenced off from the parking lot with cha in I ink fence with or without m_tal slats. (Staff fael that a playground area for young children should have as residential an atmosphere as possible and would prefer an opaque wood fence around the play area rather than a chain link fence. ) 12-6-84 • i • • Application No. 84039 continued Finally, Mr. Dunkley notes that there will be separate entrances and exits for both "sick care" and "well care" and an exit to the outside playground. The fenced playground would have a gate at one end, "away from the structure and away from all parking facilities. " Staff are unable to determine where this is. A gate on the north side of the playground would lead to an area between a fence and the building. A gate on the south side of the playground would lead to the parking lot and immediately to an access drive where cars enter and leave the site. Staff are not opposed to the existence of day care facilities in commercial zones, but are frankly skeptical that such uses should be comprehended under the rubric of "educational uses. " In this case we feel that the proposed facility is a day care or child care facility, not a school , and should be listed as such. The Cl zoning district allows as a permitted use under Section 35-320 Subsection la: "Nursing care homes, maternity care homes, child care homes, boarding care homes, provided, however, that such institutions shall . . . be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal authority." (emphasis added) It seems to us that this category may be more appropriate to comprehend day care facilities. However, this category of uses was specifically excluded from the list of Cl uses allowed in the C2 zoning district. The term "day care" is only used in the City's Zoning Ordinance in association with home occupations. New Horizon has two day care centers in Brooklyn Center located in churches in the R1 zone by special use permit. From this history, we feel that day care centers are primarily a residential use which should only be allowed in commercial zoning districts if certain conditions are met; ie. it should be considered a special use in commercial districts if permitted at all . This would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. A further concern, if day care centers were allowed by special use permit, is over appropriate recreational space. It is our opinion that children, especial- ly those over age 3,, have a definite need to be outside and play periodically. They should not be warehoused in an office building, but should have ready access to recreation space that is, in all appearances, residential . The con- version of a parking area to a playground, if done sensitively, might accomplish this. The difficulty is in writing such residential requirements into a commerc- ial classification. This difficulty may be the reason for the absence of child care centers from the list of permitted or special uses in the C2 zoning district in the first place. If the Planning Commission feels that day care centers can be comprehended in the C2 zoning district, staff recommend that an ordinance amendment be devel- oped and brought back for eventual adoption. We recommend, in the interim, that the request for a determination that day care centers are similar in nature to permitted C2 uses be denied or tabled pending the drafting of an ordinance amendment. However, if the Commission feels these facilities are truly "similar in nature" to educational uses, such a determination can be recommended. 12-6-84 -2- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION DECEMBER 20, 1984 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:38 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom, Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Molly Malecki had stated she would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 6, 1984 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the December 6, 1984 Planning Commision meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 84039 (New Horizon Enterprises, Inc.) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary proceeded with the third business item on the agenda since no other applicants were present. The item of business was a request for a determination that day care centers be considered similar in nature to educational uses so that a center may be located in the Park Nicollet Med Center building at 6000 Earle Brown Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information sheet for Application No. 84039 attached) . The Secretary also reviewed a draft ordinance amendment to allow day care centers by special use permit in the C1 and C2 zoning districts, subject to certain special conditions and requirements (see draft ordinance amendment attached) . Commissioner Sandstrom asked what would keep someone from trying to put an educational use in a shopping mall. The Secretary stated that if the City Council determined that a particular day care center were an educational use, then it would be exempt from the ordinance amendment restricting the location and site characteristics of day care centers in commercial zoning districts. The Secretary stated that the staff would consider any center which had to be licensed by the Department of Public Welfare as being a day care center and not a school. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. Ms. Sue Dunkley, representing New Horizon Enterprises, Inc. , stated that she had nothing to add to the report or the draft ordinance. Commissioner Sandstrom noted that the playground would be located in the parking lot in the case of the Med Center building. He asked how the installation of the playground would affect the parking requirements for the building. The Secretary stated that the parking requirement for the day care center was calculated at one space for every 200 sq. ft. under the "other commercial uses" category and that the 12-20-84 -1- balance of the building was.calculated at the medical formula. He stated that both of these formulas were less restrictive than the retail formula which had been provided for on the site. He stated that there was, therefore, a slight surplus of parking. There followed a brief discussion regarding the requirement that half of the surface of the playground be of a pervious material. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the ordinance amendment would do much for day care centers in Brooklyn Center. The Secretary stated that it would open up the C1 and C2 zoning districts to day care, subject to certain restrictions and requirements. Ms. Dunkley stated that there are not that many day care centers in commercial locations anyway since day care centers are generally not profitable to locate in commercial areas. Commissiner Manson cited the fact that Brooklyn Center could still control the location of day care centers in commercial districts since none presently existed. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84039 (New Horizon Enterprises, Inc. Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend denial of Application No. 84039 on the basis that day care centers are not considered to be similar in nature to an educational use. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO DAY CARE CENTERS IN COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment to allow day care centers in the C1 and C2 zoning districts by special use permit and subject to certain special conditions and requirements. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 84040 (Normandale Tennis Clubs, Inc. ) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to add a multiple purpose building for basketball, volleyball, etc. to the racquet and swim club at 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 84040 attached) . The Secretary explained briefly that the main building of the complex had somewhat less floor space than originally calculated and that there were more stalls provided on the west side of the site than in the original site plan approval. He stated that the combination of these factors made it possible for the new multiple purpose building to be accommodated on the site without increasing the size of the potential parking ramp that is to serve as proof-of-parking. The Secretary also noted that he had a phone conversation with a Mrs. Jackmann who lives on the west side of Azelia Avenue North across from the site in question. He related her opposition to the basketball court, but noted that she had been somewhat confused as to the nature of the addition and was unable to attend for health reasons. Chairman Lucht noted the use of the word "gymnasium" in the staff report and asked that it be changed to some other description inasmuchas gymnasiums are not permitted to abut R1 , R2, or R3 zoned property. He stated that he did not consider this to be the type of gymnasium or the type of use that was comprehended under the term "gymnasium" in the Zoning Ordinance. 12-20-84 -2- • i • / Planning Commission Information Sheet / Application No. 84039 Applicant: New Horizon Enterprises, Inc. Location: 6000 Earle Brown Drive Request: Determination This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its December 6, 1984 meeting. At that time, the Commission tabled the application and directed staff to prepare a draft ordinance amendment making day care centers a special use in the f,2 zoning district. This is an alternative means of addressing day care centers than the applicant's request that day care centers be determined to be similar in nature to "educational uses" which is listed as a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. Staff have prepared a draft ordinance that would make day care centers a special use in the Cl and C2 zoning districts. Day care centers would not be permitted to abut certain intense commercial uses such as gas stations or convenience food restaurants which, in turn, are not permitted to abut Rl , R2 or R3 zoned property. Special conditions would apply to day care centers in commercial districts similar to the conditions which apply to office uses in the R5 and I-1 zoning districts. Finally, the draft amendment would stipulate certain site requirements on the outside recreational areas at day care centers in the Cl and C2 districts. The requirements are intended to make the play area a substantial component of the site, separated from commercial traffic as much as possible. Staff will be prepared to discuss the draft ordinance in further detail at Thursday's meeting. Minutes of the previous discussion are enclosed. It is recommended that the Plannina Commission recommend rejecting the determination sought by the aplicant in favor of an ordinance amendment making day care centers a separate, acknowledged special use in the Cl and C2 zoning districts. i 12-20-84 • • � • I'I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that, a public hearing will be held on the 1.1:_17: of 1985 at- D:.DJ p.m. at the City Hall , 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding tale location of day care Centers in commercial zoning districts. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE LOCATION OF GROUP. DAYCARE FACILITIES .IN 'COMINIERCIAL Z-ONING .DISTRI( TS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 35-320 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklvn Center is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Section 35-320. Cl SERVICE/OFFICE DISTRICT 3. Special Uses b. Group da%l rare facilities provided ty he are not located on the same property as or adjacent to :seJw;sicn is not ;permitted t;, abst R1, R2, Z3 zones land and provided that such deve o-- Ments in each specific case, are remonstrated to be: 1, Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as t:it::i those uses permitted in the C1 district ^eneraliv. -- --- 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted inn the Ci district ;enera-71 3_ -Of— intensity to erhilit+o,! Cl district_land_ uses �h rescect io atti'vityleveis. — 4. Planned and designed to assure th7.t --- be -^nerat ed• tr affic will ri n paci y of •vaiTabT-.T-hTic fac Titie r1!1i f 1 not nave an adverse impact Upon those fat i I i`' - i es.—Fi,e im ned i r t e ne i rnborhood, or the ccirhr?;An i tv. _ 5 Traffic generated by other uses on the site will net pose a danger t0-CliTFJ'F n served by the day care use. and further prov id2d that the special recu i rem2nts set fort,", in section 35-Ll1 arr adhered tc. — -- Sect ior, Si:c:t ion 35-322 of the C i tv Ordinances of the C i t-v of Center is -„iiended by the addition cf :hr� fo 1 l ow i ng: - Scction 35-322. COMMERCE DISTRICT Slp e(Li_I Lses _L_ Group day carp- _faciI ities proviLz- l!"i0y arc not loc.tc-d o.n l.f_ -SaMC prorert as or-ii�`,_ii ?(1:_ to --;1 712 wnich 1 i1^± pE?r(il l tt(?C to_ <'bu r I'rCn:'r",y dn(i ^rtl�'1. �U ti ?y arr? no-c -r,�-TL—, In d seta I I- `ill(i:';� j.,l ,_....4 ---�-'--•'-�,n- rroy id,e,d tl?a t: �clCh C-i"`i(? Icom0rts. -I ?aCll so: I t 1!' case a ;' GL'ili�Yl L rd i;eCt O`C,•�•7.777- ---7777----_...--7777-- -- ORDINANCE NO. 85--02 Compatible with `xisting adjacent land uses as well as Frith arose uses perm ttted in the C2 c!SStr!c g genera L-Tl ' 2. Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the C2 district g 17". - 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted C2 district lard uses with respect to activit'- levels. 4. Planned and designed to ass .re th.,t generated traffic %,471 be within the capacity of aV M 53 2 pub is facilities dnd wilT not have an adverse impact upon those faci I Mlles, the immediate neighborhood, or the community. 5. Traffic generated by other uses on the site will not pose a danner to children serve„ by the day care use. Furthermore, croup day care facilities shall be subject to the special re:,u i r2ments set fort.;, in Section 35-412. Section 3. Section 35-411 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is nereby amended by the addition of the following: Section 35-411 . SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN Cl. AND CIA DISTRICTS 6. In the case of group day care facilities, outsic � recreational i faci iities _s- ;aT-l-_ be appropriate y s,?.rcrated from the parking and drivino areas by a Vdood fence not less than four feet in height; or a CounCl approved SUbStitut,2; ShDil b2 Located contigu- OUS t0 tf1A Clay care_facility; StIdTT-i':; ie—located in any yard abutting a ma ;rr thoroughfare un eTesss�Juf1'ered by a device ser forth i Section 35-400, Footnote 10; s;-Iall not have an impervious surface fcr more ti an half tne P I avi ro;.lnd area; and silo I , extend at east 60 feet from the waTT of the tui ding or to an adjacent propert 1 ine, whichever is _less, or bounded on not more than t.rr sic'^s by parking and drivin. areas. Section 4. Section 35-412 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Section 35-412. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN C2 DISTiICTS 7. In the case of group day care facilities, outside recreational faci_ dies s��a:l^�i,�_,3pprODriateT _raced firora_ tie park in^, F,nc driy i nci ereE:�by a joo6 fence nut �less roan four feet in nc i;; t; or �;�)unc iT a;%prorea s_� �stitui: r�aTl ue cated_Conti,:.- _ous o tiie eddy carefaci I'lty; shall;;or i-iT— �teF,n an �yarc abutting d major tlorcu_ghrlre �-;n 2ce I here. Vy' a device Set for,,n i, __ _ Foo„not_n__ I'_G; 5�;a , f nog ,lave_a r5 lmpervlo:.� surfaco for turd than half the 1?rc? r!),Ir)e and 5167 eTen at cc 5U feet frnrn the wa jr-�ii�;;�.; flc, i;;r or to a�i adjaceTc I S l es_s----ire �a 11�5,�b:>>:nc�z�on not nor^ Lhz vc, Si(,es b" Cyr 1 !•: ri -�f�t'c_..--- ---- / ORDINANCE NO. 85-02 S�cJon 5. Section 35-900 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereb v amended by the addition' the follow i iiG: Section 35-9_00. DEFINITIONS. The language s---t forth in. the text of this zoning ordinance shall be interpreted in accordance wit i the followinc defini- tion. Words used in the present tense small include the future; words used in the singular include the plural and the plural includes the singular. Group day care facility: A facility licensed by the i�linnesoia Department of Public pie fare tc�r:%id zhiTd care for six or ��iort�%i fL'T"at one tine. This term also includes, but is not limited `o, facil iti�. c:.;tri,��programs for children known as nursery school, _day nurseries, child c;�re canters, play groups, day care centers, 'cooperative ray care Centers and head Start pro gra�ls._ Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty k30)days following its legal publication. Adcpted this 1.1_th day of Fn� �ry 19 85 j Mayor �r---�1 i ATTEST: n ' Date of Publication_ J�:,.�tli.r M�1985 Effective Date _ -_ Febrivir-v 23 1985 (Unjerline Indicates new flatter, brackets indicate, matter t0 be : elc'ied) . CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council tweeting Date 7/8/91 Agenda Rem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Planning Commission Application No. 91008 - Welsh Companies, Inc. ***************************************************************************************** DEPT. APPROVAL: tJ Ronala A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection ***************************************************************************************** MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached ***************************************************************************************** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached x ) Planning Commission Application No. 91008 submitted by Welsh Companies, Inc. is a request for sign variance approval for three freestanding real estate signs at 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway and 5951 Earle Brown Drive. These signs are all 4 ' x 8 ' (32 sq. ft. ) space for lease signs which exceed the limits allowed for real estate signs under Section 34-140, Subdivision 2. 1, 3 and 4. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its May 16, 1991 meeting at which time the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variance request on the grounds that the standards for a sign ordinance variance were not met. The Commission, however, recommended approval of an ordinance amendment which would modify the current sign regulations for space for lease signs. The current Sign Ordinance provisions relating to temporary real estate signs for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of commercial or industrial buildings contains a somewhat complex formula for determining the size of signs based on the size of a building wall and its distance from the public right-of-way. Enforcement of the provisions is difficult due to the nature of the regulations and the fact that no permits are required for these types of signs. Another problem experienced is that many would like to have freestanding for lease or sale signs, but the ordinance limits such signs to walls. The recommended ordinance establishes 32 sq. ft. as the maximum size for these signs and allows either a wall sign or a freestanding sign per street frontage. We believe this to be a reasonable size and should be easier to enforce as well. • SUXXARY EXPLANATION CONTINUED PAGE 2 Although not related to real estate signs, the proposed ordinance also addresses a sign problem we recently had, that being a truck used as an advertising sign parked in a parking lot along Brooklyn Boulevard. The language offered is based on language from a model sign ordinance and prohibits signs on commercial vehicles which are parked at a commercial premises in such a manner as to constitute a static display advertising a business, product or service to the traveling public. Attached are copies of the minutes and information sheet from the May 16, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, ordinance amendment, ordinance sections, several letters, sign survey and a map of the area for the Council's review. Recommendation ' It is recommended that the City Council deny Planning Commission Application No. 91008 (sign ordinance variance) on the grounds that the Standards for a Sign Ordinance variance are not met and approve the recommended ordinance amendment for first reading. i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance regarding real estate signs. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF SPACE FOR LEASE REAL ESTATE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 34-130. PROHIBITED SIGNS 14 . Signs gainted on a commercial vehicle which is parked at a commercial premises in such a manner as to constitute a static display advertising a business product or service to the traveling public and which is not making a pickup or delivery or being appropriately stored on the premises. Section 34-140. PERMITTED SIGNS 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 3 . Temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling dwelling units in buildings containing two (2) or more units and temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of commercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or individual tenant areas are permitted only when vacancies exist and are limited to (walls facing public streets] one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage. The size of signs shall be (determined on the basis of wall area and distance from public right-of- way in the following manner: ] no greater than 32 sq. ft. ORDINANCE NO. [a. For buildings with a wall area of 1,000 sq. ft. or less facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 10 sq. ft. For buildings with over 1, 000 sq. ft. of wall area facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 16 sq. ft. b. Buildings eligible for temporary real estate signs under Subsection (a) above shall be entitled to a sign 50% greater in area if the building is over 100 feet from the right-of-way line and 100% greater if the building is over 300 feet from the right-of-way line. 4. Buildings entitled to temporary wall signs as specified in Subsection 34-140- : 2 . 1 (3) above may utilize up to 10 sq. ft. or 50% of the area (whichever is less) of an existing freestanding identification sign in lieu of all other real estate signs. ] Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter. ) REAL ESTATE SIGNS (FOR LEASE) Bloomington Will fax Arooklyn Park 20 sq. ft. freestanding sign of commercial 6 ' ht. No permit required. Coon Rapids Will mail Eden Prairie 32 sq. ft. freestanding sign for leasing. Also allow 32 sq. ft. sign to announce a project (to be removed when 80% leased) . No permit required. Edina Sign must be removed once 80% occupied. Mainly allowed for new construction. Signs can't exceed 100 sq. ft. , one per street frontage. No closer than 100' to pre-existing res. No permit required. Fridley One sign per street frontage 50 sq. ft. total signery. No closer than 100 ' to building. Removed when leased. Minimum distance of 10 from property line or driveway. No permit. Maple Grove 4 sq. ft in res. in one and two family district, 32 sq. ft. in multiple family, commercial and industrial districts. Heavy industrial = 50 sq. ft. Minnetonka (Temporary signs) Allow on permanent basis as part of freestanding identification sign. Separate freestanding sign 12 sq. ft. , 16 sq. ft. or 18 sq. ft. depending on size of building. Along 55 mph road, may have 32 sq. ft. sign. Permit required. Plymouth Project sign for 3 yrs. 96 sq. ft. 8 sq. ft. in res. districts. Banners prohibited. Allow 96 sq. ft. sign for commercial/industrial for lease signs. Require permit for signs over 8 sq. ft. St. Louis Park 6 sq. ft. in R1, in R2 if under 15, 000 sq. ft. of land, 6 sq. ft. In multiple family, commercial, and industrial 80 sq. ft. , require permit. 25 ht. limit in all districts for freestanding. Allow on wall, but not roof. If above 6th floor, allow 200 sq. ft. Burnsville Leasing banners allowed on temporary basis. Maximum size sign is 40 sq. ft. , 64 sq. ft. if no higher than 12 ' and setback 1' for each 1 ' of ht. Permit is $45 for 3 months for banners. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 7/22/91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ***************************************************************************************** ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Allowable Size of Space for Lease Real Estate Signs ***************************************************************************************** DEPT. APPROVAL: tA Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached ***************************************************************************************** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached z ) AThe City Council at its July 8 1991 meetin g. denied Planning Commission Application No. 91008 which was a request for a sign ordinance variance by Welsh Companies, Inc. involving various real estate signs announcing space for lease. The Council did consider, and tabled, an ordinance amendment which would modify the sign ordinance to allow both freestanding and wall for lease signs with an area of 32 sq. ft. The Council requested various modifications to the ordinance for their future consideration. Modifications have been made and a new proposal is being offered for the Council's consideration. As it relates to residential property, the new ordinance would only allow this category of real estate sign to be utilized by buildings containing five or more dwelling units. Single family, two family and multiple family buildings, up to four plexes, could only have 6 sq. ft. real estate signs rather than the 32 sq. ft. sign under the proposed ordinance. We have also modified the proposal to put a 15 ' height limit on the freestanding signs. Also, we have attempted to establish some "sunset" provisions on these signs to help assure that they are indeed temporary signs and to also require either elimination or maintenance and rejuvenation of the signs periodically. This is proposed by requiring that the signs be marked with the date they were put up and that they be removed and rejuvenated or replaced every two years. These signs are only allowed to be displayed when vacancies in a building exist. Summary Explanation Page 2 July 22, 1991 We looked at the possibility of requiring a certain percentage of vacancy, such as 10%, in order for a property to be eligible for a sign. That has not, however, been included in the proposal mainly because we would like to keep the enforcement of the ordinance simple and we believe the proposed "sunset" provisions address the issue of the temporary nature of the signs. A percentage qualifier can be added if the City Council desires. The question of requiring a setback for freestanding signs was also considered. The greenstrip requirements were noted at the last Council meeting and it was pointed out that this would cause some difficulty in placement of freestanding signs. Therefore, no setback requirements are suggested. If the City Council is concerned that the new provisions will cause an undesirable proliferation of freestanding real estate signs, we would suggest that freestanding signs then just be prohibited for this type of real estate sign as is -now the case. We, however, do believe the request for freestanding signs is reasonable. It is important to note that leasing building space is a very tight and competitive market at the present time and to have leased up space is a positive economic impact to the community. Balancing this with aesthetic concerns is what the Council should be concerned with. We have kept Welsh Companies, Inc. and the representatives of the Building Owners and Managers Association (B.O.M.A. ) apprised of the proposed changes and I would expect that they would be at the 7/22/91 Council meeting. Recommendation If this ordinance, or some modification of it, meets with the City Council's approval, we would recommend that it have a first reading and be published for public hearing at a subsequent City Council meeting. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 8/12/91 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Allowable Size of Space for Lease Real Estate Signs ***************************************************************************************** DEPT. APPRO Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached ***************************************************************************************** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached_ This item was first considered by Y the City Council at its July 8, 1991 meeting as part of the consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 91008 submitted by Welsh Companies, Inc. requesting a sign variance for various real estate signs. The City Council tabled consideration of the first reading on an ordinance amendment and directed the staff to prepare various modifications. Modifications were made and presented to the City Council for consideration on July 22, 1991. The Council decided on some additional changes at that meeting that: 1) did not extend the provisions for these types of real estate signs to multiple residential buildings; 2) limited freestanding real estate signs to a height no greater than 10 feet above ground level (15 feet had been considered previously) ; and 3) required these real estate signs be removed within one year of the date appearing on the sign as to when it was erected in order that the sign be rejuvenated or replaced and be allowed to be re-erected only if vacancies still exist (two years had been previously considered) . A first reading on the ordinance with the modifications was held on July 22 establishing August 12, 1991 at 7: 15 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing. Recommendation The ordinance is offered for a second reading and public hearing at the August 12, 1991 meeting. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 9th day of September , 1991 at 7:15 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance regarding real estate signs. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. 91-13 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF SPACE FOR LEASE REAL ESTATE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 34-130 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by adding new paragraph 14 as follows: Section 34-130. PROHIBITED SIGNS 14 . Signs painted on a commercial vehicle which is parked at a commercial premises in such a manner as to constitute a static display advertisincr a business product or service to the traveling public and which is not making a pickup or delivery or being appropriately stored on the premises. Section 2 . Section 34-140 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is amended as follows: Section 34-140. PERMITTED SIGNS 2 . Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 3 . Temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling (dwelling units in buildings containing two (2) or more units and temporary signs for the purpose of leasing or selling] portions of commercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or individual tenant areas are permitted only when vacancies exist and are limited to (walls facing public streets] one freestanding or wall sign per street frontage. The size of signs • shall be (determined on the basis of wall area and distance from public right-of- ORDINANCE NO. 91-13 way in the following manner: ] no greater than 32 sq. ft. and freestanding signs shall be no higher than 10' above ground level. All signs permitted by this section of the ordinance shall be marked with the date on which the sign was erected to be located in the lower right hand corner of the sign. Said sign must be removed no later than one year from said date and may be re-erected only if vacancies exist and the sign is completely rejuvenated or replaced. Any sign not containing the date it was erected is unlawful. [a. For buildings with a wall area of 1,000 sq. ft. or less facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 10 sq. ft. For buildings with over 1,000 sq. ft. of wall area facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 16 sq. ft. b. Buildings eligible for temporary real estate wall signs under Subsection (a) above shall be entitled to a sign 5016 greater in area if the building is over 100 feet from the right-of-way line and 100% greater if the building is over 300 feet from the right-of-way line. 4. Buildings entitled to temporary wall signs as specified in Subsection 34- 140:2.1 (3) above may utilize up to 10 sq. ft. or 50% of the area (whichever is less) of an existing freestanding identification sign in lieu of all other real estate signs. ] Section 3 . Section 2 of this ordinance - shall automatically be repealed one year from the effective date of this ordinance unless earlier reenacted by the Council. Upon such automatic repeal, the terms of Section 34-140 of the City Code of Ordinances shall automatically revert to those in effect at the time of adoption of this ordinance. Section 4 . This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Effective date of this ordinance is September 20, 1991. ORDINANCE NO. 91-13 Adopted this 12th day of August 1991. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: pn- Deputy Clerk Date of Publication August 21 , 1991 Effective Date Sept ember 20, 1991 (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter. )