The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991 05-16 PCP t t PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MAY 16, 1991 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7: 30 p.m. 2 . Roll Call 3 . Approval of Minutes - April 11, 1991 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. Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc. and Ivan and Hazel Vetterick 91007 Request for approval to rezone from C1 to R5 an approximate 30 x 100 strip of land along the back of the property at 6501 Brooklyn Boulevard. The land in question would then be transferred by platting to the lot at 4010 65th Avenue North in order to provide enough land area to support four dwelling units on the 4010 65th property. 6. Welsh Companies, Inc. 91008 Request for approval of sign variances for three freestanding real estate signs at 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway, and 5951 Earle Brown Drive. The signs are all 4 ' x 8 ' (32 sq. ft. ) space for lease signs. 7. Other Business 8. Discussion Items 8. Adjournment y (�{ 1� r Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91007 Applicant: Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc. and Ivan and Hazel Vetterick Location: 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. and 4010 65th Avenue North Request: Rezoning The applicants request approval to rezone from C-1 to R-5 an approximate 301x 100' strip of land along the back side of the lot at 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. The land in question would then be transferred by platting to the lot at 4010 65th Av. N. in order to provide enough land area to support four dwelling units on the 4010 65th property. This platting was pursued when both properties were zoned R-5, but was never filed by the previous owner. The apartment building at 4010 65th Av. N. was approved as a three-unit building with a common recreation room in 1982. However, subsequently, the recreation room was converted to a dwelling unit without proper approvals. It has been posted for some years as unlicensed and has not been rented. The reason it has been posted is because the land parcel is only large enough to support three dwelling units at 3600 sq. ft. per unit (the land area requirement for an R-4 building in an R-5 zone) . The property under consideration in this rezoning is presently the back 30 ' of the lot at 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. It is bounded on the east by 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. , on the south by the Welcome Community Home, on the west by 4010 65th Av. N. , and on the north by a single-family home. The property at 4010 65th Av. N. is zoned R-5. The other surrounding properties are zoned C-1. They were rezoned from R-5 to C-1 in 1989. Guidelines for Evaluating Rezoninas All rezoning applications are reviewed in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (attached) . The applicants have submitted a brief letter (attached) in which they comment on each guideline. A recitation of those comments and staff response follows: (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Applicants: "There is a clear need to make the building useable `as built. "' Staff: The building which the applicants refer to is the existing three-unit apartment building at 4010 65th Av. North. Although it does not have four legal units, its basic structure is comparable to a standard four-plex. We encouraged the original owner of the property to plat off enough land for a four-unit building in 1982 when the apartment development was being proposed. He preferred, 5-16-91 1 r Application No. 91007 continued however, to keep as much land as possible on the lot at 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. for future commercial development. It should be noted that the property on which the apartment was built was at one time part of a single parcel that ran between, and fronted on, Brooklyn Blvd. and 65th Av. North. The building has been an enforcement problem and is difficult to market as a three-unit building. It would simply be a more rational use of the building to have a fourth unit and the appropriate land area to support it. (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Applicants: "The proposed zoning is consistent with adjacent zoning. There are two 4-plexes adjacent to the property. Staff: We agree that the proposed R-5 zoning is consistent and compatible with the surrounding C-1 and R-5 zoning districts. (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Applicants: "We are contemplating multiple residential apartment use which is [there] now. " . Staff: The new parcel of approximately 14000 sq. ft. will support four units in a two story building or six units in a three story building. Since the two story building is already in place, the net effect of the rezoning will be to legalize a fourth unit in the existing building. (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Applicants: "The property in question was zoned R-3 and was changed to C-1 in 1989. We want to change 301x 100 ' back to R-3 . " Staff: The applicants are mistaken in referring to the R-3 zone. The property in question was zoned R-5 and the proposal should be to rezone it back to R-5. The main change in zoning in the area was the rezoning to C-1 referred to by the applicants. We do not feel that the C-1 zone bounding this parcel is incompatible with an R-5 zoning of the apartment property. Both the C-1 and R-5 zones have been considered transition zones and, in fact, offices are allowed by special use permit in the R-5 zone. 5-16-91 2 Y Application No. 91007 continued (e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Applicants: "N/A" Staff: Not applicable. (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? Applicants: "Yes. " Staff: The land area being rezoned and added to the apartment property at 4010 65th Av.N. will enable that property to meet the density requirements for four dwelling units. (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? Applicants: "No. " Staff: We would agree that the land in question is not unsuited to service/office use, should the larger parcel in which it is located be redeveloped for that use. However, within the present time frame, it can serve a more useful purpose by supporting a fourth dwelling unit on the 4010 65th property and making that building more fully usable. (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? Applicants: "Not known. " Staff: We do not feel that such a minor rezoning of land would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There is a lack of developable land in most zoning districts in the city. In this case, the land would not result in new development, but would allow for the rational use of the existing apartment building. This seems to be in the best interests of the community. (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? 0 5-16-91 3 • Application No. 91007 continued Applicants: "Yes we believe it is a reasonable solution to a on- going problem. " Staff: We agree that fitting buildings to land (or vice versa in this case) is one of the central purposes of zoning. We would, therefore, conclude that the proposed rezoning, inasmuch as it furthers valid zoning objectives, demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the owners of the land in question. The applicants have also submitted a letter (attached) in which they briefly explain the background of the zoning and platting of the property as was explained in the beginning of this report. Originally, the property at 4010 65th Av. N. was part of the same land parcel containing 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. The property at 4010 65th was subdivided off in 1982 . In 1987, the previous owner, Joe Maas, received preliminary plat approval to transfer the back 30 ' of the 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. property to the 4010 65th property. That plat was never finaled. The applicants intend to final that plat if this rezoning is approved. All the land was previously zoned R-5. In 1989, the City rezoned 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. and other parcels in that block to C-1. Thus, there is a need to rezone this 30' wide strip of land from C-1 to R-5. It should also be noted that a condition of the preliminary plat approval granted to Joe Maas was that two additional parking stalls be constructed and bounded by curb and gutter in order to meet the parking requirement for the fourth dwelling unit. Conclusion Based on the review of the rezoning guidelines above, we would recommend approval of the proposed rezoning. Most rezonings are considered once by the Planning Commission and then are tabled and referred to the relevant neighborhood advisory group (in this case, it would be the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group) . In this case, in light of the minor extent of the rezoning and the fact that no new development is contemplated, we would recommend that the Commission consider acting on the rezoning request at its first consideration. A draft resolution recommending approval is attached for the Commission's consideration. Submitted b�yt-., Gary Shallcross Planner proved by, elol Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 5-16-91 4 Section 35-208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose. The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com- prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77-167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy_ It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure. Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines. (a) Is there a clear and public need or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be comtemplated for development of the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? (e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals , is there a broad public purpose evident? (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con- figuration, topography or location? (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Date April 3 , 1991 Brooklyn Center Planning Commission Brooklyn Center Mn 55430 Dear Sirs , RE : the rezoning of the back 30' x100' of Lot 2 , blk 1 Hamms add We feel the rezoning should be done or finished to make the 4 Plex built in 1983 useable as built . The subdivision was started in 1988 and the final Plat was approved. We are just picking this up and finishing it . The final Plat was approved before the adjacent property,which we are purchasing, was rezoned to C-1 in 1989, Therefore we need the rezoning to R-3 . Ivan a tereck and Hazel Vettereck Denis L. Villella 1 Answers to the Guidelines a) There is a clear need to make the building useable" as built" b) The proposed zoning is consistent with adjacent zoning. There are 2-4Plexes adjacent to the property. c) We are contemplating multiple residental apartment use which is is now. d) The property in question was R-3 and was changed to C-1 in 1989. We want to change 30'x100' back to R-3 . e) N/A f) Yes g) No h) Not known i ) Yes we beleive it is a reasonable solution to a on-going leproblem. Sincerely, Ivan V : tereck a d Hazel Vettereck Denis L. Villella • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-4 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 91007 SUBMITTED BY IVAN AND HAZEL VETTERICK AND REAL ESTATE FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. WHEREAS, Application No. 91007, submitted by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick and Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc. , proposes rezoning from C-1 (Service/Office) to R-5 (Multiple Family) the back 30 ' of the property at 6501 Brooklyn Blvd. ; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing at its May 16, 1991 regular meeting when a staff report and testimony regarding the rezoning request were taken; and WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning has been reviewed in light of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 91007, submitted by Ivan and Hazel Vetterick and Real Estate Financial Consultants, Inc. , be approved in . consideration of the following: 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the surround land uses in the neighborhood. 2. All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district may be contemplated for the subject property. 3 . The resulting property at 4010 65th Avenue North will bear fully the ordinance development restrictions of the proposed zoning district. 4. The proposed rezoning will result in a proper fit between the existing building and land and, therefore, demonstrates merit beyond the interests of the property owners. 5. In light of the above, it is believed that the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. • • RESOLUTION NO. 91-4 Date Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ••• _ �1'� sc tP i�r r4- }a4. �'L iF' �c---_T"-F--s.��.._. •..❖.-=''\:_ its ► 't�. ..� i� t/ �t-i--�_ S- s.. = T'ry`:__ " -- OWN .\ i '�'I ♦ � � �,y �ri�.i�� r-..�-->.�.:vim.;'�,,,� - M1 i— 11 me MEN mom ME so Im s =, i ME, i� $r j1�, SOME � � /1 _ NO Iona URVE 100 mom swommiIIINK we i INS NNINO-yj i i � I � ■111 �//� "•��t■tt�tl7■t�u�- �' . i � 11 II WIIIIIII/I 1■1/ 111: / �� C "" ■I��a��i� i ME ME SEEM t�gt// I I f p IOU ..�4i tt■ taC�tfl ■ S �?,••_..-.•!�.. 111111// JIM 11 i� �� 'S� /11111// II f1t i i� ii NONE �i� •. ':'.`�� . ■��//I ,��1�•11■ flttaill 11i � 1111iEN MEN ..i �• �.� �.� .us "' '•: :`/ ��I 1111 tlttttt NO MEN Aw Son a NOME 110 7�f tltta■1 NO Im i • ■ i 111/111/■■■ t Bali OEM IN 111■■55311f: �//� :: ta ,� _ 11111 ,p tarn MEN SOM I� off■�t1/1�� i .s � � ►�_ ,:•.; is z �� ME all WPM,,,,'� �� ■t/ .. �.. ••� win■ IIIj ��11 ttGL•7S MINE Mom :•..•x:; 11 �. D� N 1/111 111��/1/111 �W i ••� i� '� i �� tttt� �mm .. •� .AE111IC11 �--� �� ■ ttf11�1 /II1f1 toff MEN an KIM MEN NEE all MEN sm �s t■/� 1/If1�t..�►�,�r`' ■Eifft�'L■ff�ff� !�'. •_.�•� �13F7f11fCiZ'ti IS ►�a�i1 i� iii �'t,♦�111 1111111111 �t 11 11 • .. MIN OEM OM mom all will f%1S MEN MEN Awl �d 2 cr. in Imm NONE ME 11' MEE MEN ► 11 11 ME 11 MEN � WIN �y � Iwo imme IS EE OR ME MEN i i•• �` �� .,,. ..... ON .�� ■:e 1� #1• ` i ilff t/1111 lips WORD P-P v1r - -- �. .� ■/111111► '� , . :■ rM� Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91008 Applicant: Welsh Companies, Inc. Location: 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway and 5951 Earle Brown Drive Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests sign variances for three freestanding real estate signs at 2700 Freeway Boulevard, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway and 5951 Earle Brown Drive. The signs are all 4 ' x 8 ' (32 sq. ft. ) space for lease signs. Under the Sign Ordinance, buildings are allowed to have temporary wall signs advertising space for lease; the size of the allowable signs varies depending on the size of the wall and its distance from public right-of-way. Buildings entitled to a wall sign (or signs) may, as an alternative, utilize up to 10 sq. ft. of an existing freestanding identification signs to advertise space for lease (See Section 34-140.2. 1 3 and 4, attached) . In the cases being reviewed, the applicant has erected separate freestanding signs advertising space for lease which are not permitted by the ordinance. Applicant's Submittal The applicant, in the person of William Katter, has submitted a letter (attached) in which he states his case for a temporary variance of one year from the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. The letter asks that the three 4 ' x 8 ' signs be allowed to remain because these properties are in receivership and Welsh Companies has been charged with the responsibility of leasing as much space as possible over the next year. He states that a 2 ' x 5' sign would have poor visibility. Mr. Katter also argues that the variance should have no negative effects and in no way constitutes a detriment to the public welfare. He states that it is a means of attracting new business to the community. He adds that other properties in the City have this type of signery and do not conform to the ordinance. Mr. Katter concludes by noting the distressed nature of the overall real estate market and their particular situation as receiver for these properties, and asks that the City aid their efforts by softening the present sign restrictions and granting a variance. Collateral Submittals The applicant is correct in stating that there are numerous other freestanding space for lease signs in the City. The City's ordinance pertaining to these types of signs has not been rigorously enforced for some years. On approximately March 1, 1991, Building Inspector David Fisher sent out a compliance letter to owners of approximately 30 properties in the City. Some have called and/or written expressing why they feel they need this type of signery (see letters attached) . We have also met with representatives of B.O.M.A. (Building Owners and Managers Association) of Minneapolis. They have also submitted a brief letter recommending an ordinance amendment to allow the option of a freestanding or wall sign per frontage up to 16 sq. ft. for walls less than 1,000 sq. ft. and up to 32 sq. ft. for walls over 1,000 sq. ft. 5-16-91 1 Application No. 91008 continued Staff Response The existing ordinance pertaining to space for lease signs dates to the early 1980 's when the building at 5901 John Martin Drive sought a variance from what was then allowed (a 10 sq. ft. wall sign) . The ordinance that resulted from that application is fairly complex and is difficult to enforce in practice though it makes sense in theory. While we do not feel the present application meets the standards for a variance, we would recommend that the Commission consider an ordinance amendment that would simplify both enforcement and compliance and would be more in keeping with industry standards. In this vein, we would generally agree with the recommendation of B.O.M.A. We have surveyed other communities and found that provisions vary, but that the B.O.M.A. recommendations are within the range of what is normally allowed and tend to reflect what exists in the community. They are also simpler than the ordinance presently in place. Staff have also discussed whether a permit should be required for space for lease signs. At present, no permit is required. A permit requirement, if properly observed, would allow review of signs before they are erected and would thus ease enforcement. At present, violations must be caught after the fact. Generally, under the ordinance, a sign which requires a permit is a permanent sign. Space for lease signs should not become permanent lest they act as billboards, advertising a company which may wind up leasing space on some other property, perhaps even in another city. The Commission may wish to give direction on the permit question. We believe that a revised ordinance would mean less noncompliance in any case and enforcement should be easier even without a permit. A draft ordinance is attached for the Commission's review. Submitted by, C-7 l Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, a Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 5-16-91 2 34-160 2. The fee for a sign hanger's license shall be as set forth by City Council resolution, and the license shall run from May 1 to April 30 of the following year. 3. No license shall take effect until the licensee shall file with the City Clerk a bond with corporate surety in form approved by the City Attorney in the penal sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000) conditioned that the licensee will pay all permit fees required under this ordinance, pay any fines imposed upon him for violation thereof, will conform to all provisions of this ordinance and will indemnify and hold the City, its officers and agents harmless from any damages or claim resulting from or related to the erection or maintenance of any sign in the City by the licensee. Section 34-170. APPEALS. In order to secure relief where it is alleged that an administrative officer of the City has committed an error in interpretation of judgment in issuing an order or making a determination, any person may appeal said order or determination consistent with the provisions of Sect ion 35-251 of the City Ordinances. v S/ection 34-180. VARIANCES (ADJUSTMENTS) . The procedure for obtaining a variance from the requirements of this ordinance shall be the same as set out in Section 35-240 of the Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the specific property or use under consideration. The provisions of this ordinance, considered in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances related to the property or uses thereof must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumstances caused by the property owner or the applicant or a predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 1. A particular hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out; 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land or the use thereof for which the variance is sought and are not common, generally to other property or uses thereof within the same zoning classification; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Section 34-190. ENFORCEMENT. It shall be the responsibility of the City Manager to cause the requirements of this ordinance to be properly enforced and to administer the same. 34-140 d. Signs denoting the architect, engineer, contractor, or owner when placed upon a respective worksite and not exceeding an aggregate of . forty-eight (48) square feet in area, to be removed ten (10) days following completion of construction. e. Copy or message changing on a printed or painted sign which is permitted by this ordinance. f. Portable and freestanding political signs for a period of not more than sixty (60) days before and ten (10) days after an election provided no one sign is greater than sixteen (16) square feet in area, except that there shall be no limitation on the size of Political or other noncommercial signs during the period from August 1 in a state general election year until ten days following the state general election. Freestanding political signs may be installed only upon private property with the permission of the property owner who shall be responsible for removal thereof. The candidate whose candidacy is promoted by an improperly placed or otherwise illegal political sign shall be held responsible therefor. g. Signs or posters painted on or attached to the inside of a display window. This shall include illuminated signs, but not flashing signs. h. Flags, badges, or insignia of any government or governmental agency, or of any civic, religious, fraternal or professional organization. Commercial and industrial establishments may display a single flag consisting of the official corporate seal or insignia as identification of the individual establishment. Advertising or promotion of specific products or services is prohibited unless approved in conjunction with an administrative permit as provided in Section 35-800. i. Emergency signs required by other governmental agencies. j . Temporary displays which are erected to celebrate, commemorate, or observe a civil or religious holiday. k. Courtesy bench signs, provided they are installed and maintained by / a person, firm or corporation licensed by the City Council. 1. Real Estate signs as follows: 1. Temporary freestanding or wall signs for the purpose of selling or leasing individual lots or entire buildings provided that such signs shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area for residential property and thirty-two (32) square feet for other property and that there shall be only one such freestanding or wall sign permitted for each property. The sign must be removed within ten (10) days following the lease or sale. Temporary freestanding off-site real estate signs announcing an "open house" or similar activity for the purpose of showing or displaying a home for sale are permitted provided: a. The off-site sign is located on r' p ivately-owned residential property and there is no objection to the display of the sign on the part of that property owner; 34-140 b. The off-site sign is displayed only during the time of the "open house" or showing; C. The size of the off-site sign shall not exceed three (3) square feet in area. 2. A temporary freestanding sign for the purpose of announcing or promoting a new residential, commercial or industrial project development, provided that each residential project contains at least six (6) dwellings or lots. Further provisions are that one such sign is permitted for each major thoroughfare the project abuts; the signs shall be located at least one hundred thirty (130) feet from any pre-existing home; the signs are removed within two (2) years of issuance of the first building permit in the project or when the particular project is ninety (90) percent sold out or rented, whichever is sooner; and each sign shall not exceed the following size limitations: Project area under 10 acres - 48 square feet Project area over 10 acres - 320 square feet 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. The size of signs shall be determined on the basis of wall area and distance from public right-of-way in the following manner: 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 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. M. Rummage Sale Signs as follows: 1. A temporary on-site sign not exceeding six (6) square feet in area, identifying the location of and/or information relating to a rummage sale. Banners, pennants, streamers, balloons, it stringers or similar attention attracting devices may also be displayed on the property where the sale is being conducted. The sign and other devices may be- displayed for the duration of the sale only, and must be removed at its termination. Welsh Companies,Inc. 6 Pine Tree Drive,Suite 380 Arden Hills,Minnesota 55112 V`►dshCompanies 612-484-4334 March 5, 1991 Mr. Gary Shallcross City Planner City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Shallcross: We are writing you in response to the notice we received regarding our violation of Brooklyn Center's Sign Ordinance. We ask that you kindly consider the following circumstances as grounds for permitting a temporary variance from the City's Ordinance. Due to the 30 day compliance rule, we ask that this matter is reviewed before April 1, 1991,in order for us to take any necessary action I to prevent possible enforcement of this Ordinance. Welsh Companies, Inc. has been appointed by the U.S. District Court as Receiver for the property located at 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway, and the property located at 2700 Freeway Boulevard. As you may be aware, the need for a Receivership is created by distressed properties; present occupancy levels for these two properties are 83% and 72%, respectively. As Receiver for the Court, we have been instructed to alleviate this situation to the best of our ability. It is our belief that our duties as Receiver are greatly impaired by the restrictive Sign Ordinance currently in place. The present City Sign Ordinance does not provide us with the ability to effectively communicate the change in the marketing entity for the property, and would interfere greatly with the marketability of the properties, and therefore, hamper our ability to carry out our duties as Receiver. The visibility of a 2'x 5' (10 square feet) sign is extremely poor, as opposed to the current.0 x 8' sign, which has consistently provided us with a number of new tenants we place into properties we manage. The variance we are requesting would be a temporary variance, lasting for a one year period, which is the equivalent of the properties' Redemption period under current Real Estate laws. The signs we propose to utilize would be freestanding in nature, and approximately 48 square feet in total surface area, or14'x 8'in dimension. We would utilize only one (l) sign on each property, and would be more than happy to conform to setback regulations. The proposed variance should not have any negative effects to the City, and in no way constitutes a detriment to the public welfare. To the contrary, the signs are a viable means of communicating available space and attracting new business into the City, providing employment opportunities and numerous other benefits to the community as a whole. In addition, we have found that a great number of properties within the City display signage Real Estate Development • Construction • Brokerage • Property Management • Investment Services Page Two Gary Shallcross March 5, 1991 that does not conform to the present Ordinance. It was on this presumption that we placed fet'rimental 8' signs on these properties; replacing the signs with a 2' x 5' sign would be very and costly to our marketing efforts. Given the distressed nature of the overall real estate market, and our particular situation as Receiver for these properties, we ask that the City of Brooklyn Center aid our efforts by softening the present sign restriction, and granting a variance as described above. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you personally to further discuss our application. Sincerely, William P. Katter Property Manager WPK:jl Welsh Companies,Inc. 6 Pine Tree Drive,Suite 380 Arden Hills.Minnesota 55112 WMCompanies 612-484-4334 March 11, 1991 Mr. Gary Shallcross City Planner City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Shallcross: We are writing you in response to the notice we received regarding our violation of Brooklyn Center's Sign Ordinance. We ask that you kindly consider the following circumstances as grounds for permitting a temporary variance from the City's Ordinance. Due to the 30 day compliance rule, we ask that this matter is reviewed before April 1, 1991,in order for us to take any necessary action to prevent possible enforcement of this Ordinance. Welsh Companies, Inc. has been appointed by the U.S. District Court as Receiver for the property located at 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway, and the property located at 2700 Freeway Boulevard. As you may be aware, the need for a Receivership is created by distressed properties; present occupancy levels for these two properties are 83% and 72%, respectively. As Receiver for the Court, we have been instructed to alleviate this situation to the best of our ability. It is our belief that our duties as Receiver are greatly impaired by the restrictive Sign Ordinance currently in place. The present City Sign Ordinance does not provide us with the ability to effectively communicate the change in the marketing entity for the property, and would interfere greatly with the marketability of the properties, and therefore, hamper our ability to carry out our duties as Receiver. The visibility of a 2'x 5' (10 square feet) sign is extremely poor, as opposed to the current.�; x 8' sign, which has consistently provided us with a number of new tenants we place into properties we manage. The variance we are requesting would be a temporary variance, lasting for a one year period, which is the equivalent of the properties' Redemption period under current Real Estate laws. The signs we propose to utilize would be freestanding in nature, and approximately 48 square feet in total surface area, orfi;x 8'in dimension. We would utilize only one (1) sign on each property, and would be more than happy to conform to setback regulations. The proposed variance should not have any negative effects to the City, and in no way constitutes a detriment to the public welfare. To the contrary, the signs are a viable means of communicating available space and attracting new business into the City, providing employment opportunities and numerous other benefits 'to the community as a whole. In addition, we have found that a great number of properties within the City display signage Real Estate Development • Construction • Brokerage • Property Management • Investment Services Page Two Gary Shallcross March 11, 1991 that does not conform to the present Ordinance. It was on this presumption that we placed x 8' signs on these properties; replacing the signs with a 2' x 5' sign would be very detrimental and costly to our marketing efforts. Given the distressed nature of the overall real estate market, and our particular situation as Receiver for these properties, we ask that the City of Brooklyn Center aid our efforts by softening the present sign restriction, and granting a variance as described above. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you personally to further discuss our application. Sincerely, 1 Kevin A. Connolly Property Manager KAC.jl OCIATION BUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASS 1 M I N N EAP0LIS : BOMAd . I NTERNATIONAL' r k ` , 121 SO 8th STREET,#610,MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402=2841 TELEPHONE:612/338-8627 FAX 612/340.9744 x p, .A ....,.x'31 d, k t , �..�1.%a�» a'V �•nl+-] May 2, 1991 OFFICERS 1990.91 JOHN P.KELLY,JR.,RPA® Mr. Ron Warren President Director of Planning and Inspections THOMAS J.PARISH City of Brooklyn Center. Vice President CLIFFORD HABECK,RPAm 63`0.'11 Shingle Creek Parkway SecretaryiTreasurer Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 KENT D.WARDEN,RPA'• Executive Director Dear Mr. Warren: DIRECTORS DENNIS DIESSNER Thanks again for the opportunity to meet with you and your staff DEAN FREEMAN to discuss concerns by our members about application of your BETSY GEORGE,RPA sign rdinance to leasing },.,,� k, CLIFFORD HABECK,RPA• � �-"7 Slgne• �$ we S��.C�,l/ market JAMES JACHYMOWSKI conditions are very soft at this time and we are concerned that DOUGLAS JOHNSON properties located in Brooklyn Center not be placed at a QP.KELLY,JR.,RPA• OMAS J.PARISH competitive disadvantage relative to neighboring ccumunities by EPHEN J.SONTAG a more restrictive regulation of leasing signs. Ex-Officio JOHN C.MOEN,RPAz the main comer with the current ordi-narice is the requirement that such leasing signs be fixed to the walls facing public streets, while the standard in the market generally provides for more visible free standing signs. We recannend the provision be changed to permit either wall mounted or free standing signs. As far as regulation of the maximum size for such signs, we would recamTend for buildings with wall area of 1,000 square feet or less that the maxim= size be 16 square feet, and for bu-ildirlg--, T-dth over 1,000 scrare feet of wall area, the size be 32 square feet. Due to relaxation of size and positioning restrictions, no premium would need to be granted for distance from the right of way line. We believe this proposal would simplify administration on the Part of the City and would closely conform to current actual practice. We will follow up shortly to see how you would like us to proceed, or don't hesitate to call if you have questions or caamnents. Yours truly,, Kent D. Warden, RPA I Executive Director KDW:da . 0 34-140 b. The off-site sign is displayed only during the time of the "open house" or showing; c. The size of the off-site sign shall not exceed three (3) square feet in area. 2. A temporary freestanding sign for the purpose of announcing or promoting a new residential, commercial or industrial project development, provided that each residential project contains at least six (6) dwellings or lots. Further provisions are that one such sign is permitted for each major thoroughfare the project abuts; the signs shall be located at least one hundred thirty (130) feet from any pre-existing home; the signs are removed within two (2) years of issuance of the first building permit in the project or when the particular project is ninety (90) percent sold out or rented, whichever is sooner; and each sign shall not exceed the following size limitations: Project area under 10 acres - 48 square feet Project area over 10 acres - 320 square feet 3. Temporary gns for the purpose of leasing or selling dwelling units buildings containing two (2) or more units and tempor ry signs for the purpose of leasing or selling portions of mmercial or industrial buildings, such as offices or ind' idual tenant areas are permitted only when vacancies exist and saze '_m'_:d to walls facing public streets. The size of signs shall be determined on the basis of wall area and dicrane° from phhl Q ght -f=wsy in the following manner: For buildings with a wall area of 1,000 sq. ft. or less facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be W/6 sq. ft. For buildings with over 1,000 sq. ft. of wall area facing a public street, the maximum size sign shall be 11fr sq. ft. b. s eligible for temporary ate wall signs under Subsectio ve be entitled to a sign 50% greater in area Wilding 00 feet from the right-of- ine and 100% greater if the buil in r 300 et from the right-of-way line. 4. Buildings entitled to temporary wall signs as pecified in Subsection 34-140:2 1 (3) above may utilize up to �r9�sq. ft. or 50% of the area (whichever is less) of an existing freestanding identification sign in lieu of all other real estate signs. m. Rummage Sale Signs as follows: 1. A temporary on-site sign not exceeding six (6) square feet in area, identifying the location of and/or information relating to a rummage sale. Banners, pennants, streamers, . balloons, stringers or similar attention attracting devices may also be displayed on the property where the sale is being conducted. The sign and other devices may be displayed for the duration of the sale only, and must be removed at its termination. a t QUILDING OWNERS AND MANAGERS ASSOCIATION ' x f F' r5 MI N N EA P O L Ik ` Tl D`JIYIA .R`vv MW".L v"ivi ! E53S� y i ' e n 105 SO Sth STREET #927,MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55402-1259 x r a t S; 5 1 ELEPHONE:612/338-8627 . FAX 612/340 97 OFFICERS 1990-91 JOHN P.KELLY,JR.,RPA® President THOMAS J.PARISH March 21, 1991 Vice President CLIFFORD HABECK,RPA'II Secretary/Treasurer KENT D.WARDEN,RPAs Executive Director Mr. Ron Warren Director of Planning and Inspections DIRECTORS City of Brooklyn Center DENNIS DIESSNER 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway DEAN FREEMAN BETSY GEORGE,RPAx Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 CLIFFORD HABECK,RPA® JAMES JACHYMOWSKI Dear Ron: DOUGLASJOHNSON KELLY,JR.,RPA'* MAS J.PARISH Thanks for the courtesy that you and your staff extended us PHENJ.SONTAG on Monday to discuss Brooklyn Center's Sign Ordinance Ex-Officio JOHN C.MOEN,RPAv trelative to engsleeill get back Y ou within the next couple of weeks with suggestions of changes we would like to request be considered in that ordinance. In the meantime, if you have additional thoughts or questions, please don't hesitate to let me know. Again, thanks for taking the time to review this matter. Yours truly, Kent D. Warden, RPA Executive Director cc: Dick McGinley, Chair, Suburban Issues Committee John P. Kelly, Jr. , President, Minneapolis BOMA I ,..••...,o.., rrnrn•�rn ur•t.i nnnuin rouu rnn •un u••••nrnr •nnni..•�.w.. •..�rw•.•�•wu•• Ir TS tN- DEVELOPMENT • LEASING • MANAGEMENT March 20, 1991 Mr. Gary Shallcross, Planner City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: BOULEVARD SHOPPING CENTER 63RD AVE. NORTH & BROOKLYN BLVD. Dear Mr. Shallcross: This letter is in reference to the notice regarding the temporary leasing sign we installed at the above referenced shopping center. We were surprised to receive a notice from the City of Brooklyn Center indicating that our leasing sign was not in compliance with the City's requirements since we had contacted the City to verify our intentions prior to installing the sign. The leasing sign, which is located in the boulevard of the shopping center, is 4 ' x 8 ' which is the standard size used by Kraus-Anderson Realty Company in its 36 different retail locations. The size and location of the leasing sign is very important to effectively market the leasable premises. By increasing the visibility of the sign we are increasing our chances of re- leasing the premises at an earlier date, which in effect allows us to remove the sign at an earlier date. By only allowing a 10 square foot sign to be placed on the building the readability and effectiveness will be reduced substantially. We feel that the City of Brooklyn Center should re-evaluate their sign ordinance and change the current sign criteria to allow for legible leasing signs to be temporarily placed on retail property until the vacancy if filled. If you have any questions, please contact myself or Kevin Fossum, the Property Manager. Sincerely, Barbara Smestad Tenant Improvement Coordinator 523 South Eighth Strect • 1liimc<i ohs, Mimwsota )51f04-1078 - (612) *32-12-11 1 March 19, 1991 Nigh Mr. Gary Shallcross Mew CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway tt.,.lte�L\L. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Ii41b%lea Investments.Inc. Sha kdlnbrook Crossing Brooklyn Park WX 88445 Dear Mr. Shallcross, 4"-4f47 . Re: Sign on 7022-7068 Brooklyn Blvd. - In response to your letter of February 28, 1991, I would like to inform the City of my intention to take the sign down that I now have at that address. My sign is a for sale sign from HIGH VIEW INVESTMENTS, INC. 'I am marketing three condominiums in that development.. A sign is by far the best advertising and we' had hoped to keep it on the front lawn. Per your City ordinance, it appears that the 'only approved sign would be a wall sign. This group of buildings is of a brick exterior.and a glass enclosure on the front which prohibits that kind of a sign. Also, it would be difficult-to market any one of the condominiums with that type of a sign because of the logistics of it, as most of them are internal, with very little wall space. I would appreciate some clarifying by your office at some time in reference to my sign. As I understand, Mr.' Fisher said the City is looking at this particular portion '.of the sign ordinance now. In addition, the 'sign is still frozen into the ground and I -cannot remove it. - _7 As I understand it, the sign fits the size criteria as it is only 2' by 31 and- only one side of the sign is used. 'Be aware that I would like to hear from you about this, but if I do not hear from You, I will remove it as soon as the weather permits.- Sinc rely, , Sharon Schmidt HIGH VIEW INVESTMENTS, INC. I SM Corporation 2561 Territorial Road•St. Paul, MN 55114-1500.612/646-1717•FAX 6121646-2404 March 15, 1991 - Mr. Gary Shallcross City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Brooklyn Crossing Office Park - 3300 County Road 10 Dear Mr. Shallcross: This letter is in response to the February 28, 1991 notice that we received from David Fisher regarding the leasing signs that we are currently maintaining at our Brooklyn Crossing project. While we acknowledge the need to minimize the visual clutter within the City's commercial district, we feel that the current ordinance is overly restrictive when compared to the standards imposed by other communities within the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Most suburbs in which we own property allow a 41x 8 ' free standing sign located within the setback on each major thoroughfare. The City's more restrictive ordinance which is now being enforced places commercial property owners at a disadvantage in competing for scarce tenants with neighboring communities since it is not as easy for prospective renters to identify and contact leasing personnel. We would respectably request that the City review its sign ordinance at its earliest convenience. In reference to your request that non- complying signage be removed within thirty days, we plan to remove all free standing leasing signs except for one 41x 8 ' sign on the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage pending a final resolution of this issue. Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further. Very truly, David Carland Property Manager Pit[I 9RI J cc: David Fisher, Building Inspector '- "r `�' = ':i.W «�:.. ,1 The 9 Bogert Larsen Partners March 12, 1991 Mr. Gary Shallcross City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: Lease Signage Brookdale Square Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Gary: This letter is to clarify that our leasing sign is vitally important to our business and health of our shopping center. We get a number of calls off the signs as our competitors do. We have similar signs in Eden Prairie, Maplewood and Burnsville. The signs which we have placed on the property are professionally manufactured and tasteful. The signs cost us approximately $700-$850 each to manufacture and place on the property. We would like the opportunity to discuss this matter further as I am sure other property owners in Brooklyn Center will. We would also seek a variance if that is necessary to keep our leasing signs. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, W. Christoph r Galle Vice President WCG:kjg 730 Second Avenue South - Suite 281 - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 371-0424 Fax: 612-371-0634 CITY REAL ESTATE SIGNS (FOR LEASE) Bloomington Will fax Brooklyn 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. MEN MMM N �= 0 APPLICATION No ., H 0_ � ''- 0 ��••, �� .: � 1: : � ire ■ �ca3ff 94 Alt 1 ME RUN rown gill oil IRS 1� -, ■dam► ♦i,��/�a I villain INS 4 .�`�'°`"'�= �,,_t •� via r--:��. v _ -• • Ni a lose ass Ron IN Imam■� �� _ c � again Mi INSIM MIN Moo fp WE us= � Zwim _m■ __ _ __ __ jw�- _a _mo M_ _ __ �_ tix . __ _� __ _ __ __ 02 1. Lam __ -mom MMI MIN ticIMEHIMM IMMIMIM low r--ME MEMEN IN lJ_ __ _ DRAFT 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 painted 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 set-vice 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 sg. ft. [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 i (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter. )