Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 03-01 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STUDY SESSIOIs March 1 , 1979 1 . Call to Order: 8:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: February 15, 1979 4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Corranission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Cowission makes recommendations to the City Council . The City Council makes all final decisions on these matters . 5. Kenneth Bergstrom 79001 Rezoning, from C-2 (Commerce) to R-4 (Multiple Family Residential ), of the approximate 8 acre tract located in the 1300 block south of 69th Avenue North. 6. Discussion Items a) Draft. Ordinance Amendment Regarding • Directional Signs 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment i I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79001 Applicant: Kenneth Bergstrom • Location: 1300 block south of 69th Avenue North Request: Rezoning The applicant proposes rezoning from C-2 (Commerce) to R-4 (Multiple Family Residential ) of the approximate 8 acre tract located in the 1300 block south of 69th Avenue North. The property is bounded on the west by the Humboldt Square Shopping Center; on the north by 69th Avenue North and the City's Public Utilities Building; on the east by single family residential homes facing Emerson Avenue North; and on the south by a number of R5 Multiple Family Residential Dwellings. Your attention is directed to the January 11 , 1979 Planning Commission information sheet and January 11 , 1979 Commission minutes (attached) relating to the appli- cation. This application was tabled by the Commission following a public hearing on January 11 and referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The Neighborhood Group met on February 8, 1979 and has submitted a report relating to their recommendations (attached) . The Group was opposed to the rezoning request noting that the Northeast Neighborhood has an over abundance of multiple family dwelling units, and that it is felt that multiple unit buildings of the density proposed, or of a greater density ,$as permitted in an R4 zoning district, would seriously effect the value of existing single family homes. The report goes on to indicate that the Neighborhood Group has favored an R1 rezoning request of approximately two years ago and would support such a request in the future, but would prefer to see the current C2 zoning designation regain rather than to have the property rezoned to R4. They also did not see the request benifiting the community, but rather only the particular property owner. An informational report (attached) has been developed indicating the number and percentage of multiple family residential units by neighborhood. The report shows the Northeast Neighborhood contains 1 ,327 units or 37.7% of all multiple family residential units in the City. The report further indicates that 626 -units or 17.8% of all units in the City can be found within 1 ,000 ft. of either side of Humboldt Avenue North, between 65th Avenue North and 70th Avenue North. Attached for your review is a copy of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy & Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City Ordinances. It is the policy of the City that rezoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and 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 accepted planning principles. Currently the rezoning proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for a site at the center of the Northeast Neighborhood to be retained as Commercial for purposes of ultimate development as a neighborhood business center. The subject site and the present Humboldt Square Shopping Center is the area designated for the location of such a facility. A favorable recommendation re- garding the rezoning request would necessitate an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission saw fit to make such a recommendation when recommending a rezoning of this parcel to RI approximately two years ago noting that Humboldt Square Shopping Center adequately serves this neighbonccod and satisfies the Comprehensive Plan designation of the area for retail shopping facilities, and also that there is substantial vacant commercial land elsewhere in the neighborhood. 3- -79 Application No. 79001 Page 2 It should also be pointed out that the Commission in recommending the rezoning also looked at the need for additional R1 zoned land in the neighborhood which would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation that single famiiv residential development be the predominant characteristic of this neighborhood. I feel the question facing the Commission is whether or not there is a need for additional R4 zoned land in this neighborhood, particularly in light of the already high number of multiple residential units in the Northeast Neighborhood and in particular in the immediate vicinity of this site. There is a large vacant R4 tract of land located between Camden Avenue North and West River Road, just north of 70th Avenue as well as some smaller multiple residential zoned parcels in the neighborhood that would seem to satisfy projected needs for this type development. It is recommended that the Commission adopt, by resolution, a recommendation to deny Application No. 79001 submitted by Kenneth Bergstrom for the following reasons: 1 . The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation that single family residential development be the predominant characteristic of the Northeast Neighborhood. 2. There is substantial vacant multiple residential zoned property in the Northeast Neighborhood. 3. There is no perceived public need or benefit in the proposal in light of the already large number of existing multiple residential structures in the immediate vicinity. 4. The proposed rezoning does not demonstrate merit beyona the interests of the owner of the property in question. 3-1-79 i ,r V RGRE . V L, N Z � PARK > z { W � W W > > z EVERGREEN Z z 4�f1,�- a SCHOOL W a�+� i aC Y I 'c W 1 J 70 TM .ti� .4. !"r 7 F � � CITY I ' a'i _ -- I INC f I e VizLI �� �L/ ANNEX MAINTENANCE RV LA N, N E I EMER ' ANE G A L \ ' .A �(r / R4 }—x— ► = ; i�.. WATER TOWER ;�C),If T RoAu P0. 13.01 1 amrs _ •`t F i' r/ 01 1 ! �- R 5 1 W z J 67 TH AVE �. 3 BROOKLYN CENTER a oYC HIGH SCHOOL M — na a r FIREHOUSE A w PAR FIRE a ��. . STA. FREEWAY BLVD. 6 �wr cx 0 4 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79001 Applicant: Kenneth Bergstrom Location: 1300 Block south of 69th Avenue North Request: Rezoning The applicant proposes rezoning from C-2 (Commerce) to R-4 (Multiple Family Residential ) of the approximate 8 acre tract located in the 1300 block south of 69th Avenue North. The property is bounded on the west by the Humboldt Square Shopping Center; on the north by 69th Avenue North and the City 's Public Utilities building; on the east by single family residential homes facing Emerson Avenue North and on the south by a number of R5 Multiple Family Residential dwellings . The applicant has submitted a letter to the file requesting the rezoning. He indicates in the letter that the site in question has remained undeveloped over the years under its current C-2 zoning "because of the apparent lack of a need for additional shopping centers in the area . He is requesting the rezoning for the purpose of building quadra homes which he claims would furnish the need for additional medium-priced housing. He also notes that this concept would provide an attractive buffer between the existing single family homes and the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. Permitted uses in the R4 Zoning District include Multiple Family Dwellings of one and one-half or two stories in height; R3 uses (Townhouses or Garden Apartments and Condominium Single Family Attached Dwelling Units) provided such uses adhere to the district requirements that prevail any R3 Zoning District; and accessory uses incidental to permitted or special uses. The City's Comprehensive Plan (Page 49) calls for a site at the center of the Northeast Neighborhood to be retained as commercial for purposes of ultimate � . development as a neighborhood business center. The subject site and the present .. -!i C.,,, r . cl,.op ;r r' r + th^ a^C3 �.^c;nn�torl for the 1.�G?ti0n for silrh a facility. The Plan also states that it is important that the development of the shopping center be designed as an integrated unit rather than permitting individual stores to be built in a piecemeal , unrelated fashion. The same applicant had requested a rezoning of the subject property from C-2 (Commerce) to R-1 (Single Family Residential ) under Application No. 77011 in March, 1977 (Planning Commission and City Council minutes attached) . The Planning Commis- sion, at that time, had reviewed the Comprehensive Plan inconsistencies of that proposed rezoning and recommended through Planning Commission Resolution No . 77-2 (attached) that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to provide for the development of single family housing on the remaining developable land in the southeast quadrant of 69th and Humboldt Avenues North based upon the following findings: 1 . The Northeast Neighborhood is adequately served by shopping facilities, both within and near the neighborhood. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designation of this area for future development as a neighborhood shopping center has been satisfied with the existing retail center. 3. There is substantial vacant commercial land elsewhere in the Northeast Neighborhood. 4. The owner has initiated a rezoning, from C-2 (General Commerce) to R-1 (Single Family Residential ) , of the approximate 8 acre parcel described as Lot 2, Block 1 , Hi Crest Square Addition. 1-11-79 -1- Application No. 79001 Page 2 5. The proposed use represents a reasonable use of the land and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan development goal for the Northeast Neighborhood. The Planning Commission, at that time, also recommended rezoning of the area through Planning Commission Resolution No. 77-3 (attached) for the following reasons: 1 . There is need for additional R-1 zoned land in the the Northeast Neighborhood, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommend- ation that single family residential development be the pre- dominant characteristic of this neighborhood. 2. The existing Humboldt Square retail center adequately serves the neighborhood as a centrally located shopping center. 3. There is no perceived need for additional C-2 development in this area. 4. The owner has proposed the zoning change which represents a reasonable use classification of the property. 5. The Commission, pursuant to Chapter 35-202, has recommended appropriate amendment of the Comprehensive Plan goals for • this area in Commission Resolution No. 77-2. i ne �, cy t ounc i i recora of the rev ew o Lh i s r`cyues t i rid i ca tes that the Count 1 , was inclined to amend the Comprehensive Plan and approve the rezoning to R-1 as recommended by the Planning Commission, but continued consideration of the Com- prehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning until the applicant had submitted a proposal to the City Manager which showed positive buffering of the property in question from the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. The screening plans were never submitted by Mr. Bergstrom and the rezoning was never approved. In an April , 1978 letter, Mr. Bergstrom formally requested the withdrawal of the re- zoning request which was acknowledged by the City Council on April 24, 1978. Another aspect of the review of this matter that bears closer scrutiny is the Comprehensive Plan Goal Statement (Page 48) to "make single family detached housing the predominant character of the Northeast N eighborhood. " A March, 197& land use inventory of the City indicates single family detached dwellings com- prised 48.5% of the total number of dwellings of the Northeast Neighborhood. Townhouses and Multiple Family Apartments together comprised 51 .4% of the total number of dwellings in the Northeast Neighborhood. We are in the process of updating this inventory and hope to have the results by Thursday's Commission meeting. A copy of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City Ordinances is attached for your review. The merits of a rezoning request must be reviewed against this policy and these guidelines . 1-11-79 Application No. 79001 Page 3 The staff met with the applicant and a developer in December regarding this site and potential development. We discussed briefly density requirements and a possible layout for the quadra home concept. They indicated they would submit conceptual plans regarding their proposal along with.the rezoning application to better illustrate a proposed development to meet R4 Zoning District requirements . To date, we have not received such plans to comment on. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. Recommendation It is established Commission policy to refer all rezonings and Comprehensive Plan review matters to the appropriate Neighborhood Advisory Group which is, in this instance,, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. The Commission should dis- cuss the merits of the proposal and the various planning concerns, and then table the matter for further review and input by the Northeast Neighborhood • 1-11-79 A vote was taken to elect Harold Pierce as Chairman. The motion passed unanimously. Election of Chairman Pro tem Chairman Pierce next called for nominations for Chairman Pro tem. Motion by Commissioner Lucht to nominate William Hawes as Chairman Pro tem. . Chairman Pierce asked for other nominations. No other nominations were made. Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the nomi- nations. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Lucht, Malecki , Manson and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. A vote was taken to elect William !-'awes as Chairman Pro tem. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Pierce asked for other nominations. No other nominations were made. Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the nomi- nations . Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Lucht, Malecki , Manson, and. Theis . Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 79001 (Kenneth Bergstrom) Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of consideration was Appli- cation No. 79001 submitted by Kenneth Bergstrom. The Secretary introduced the application and explained that the applicant was seeking a rezoning from C2 to R4 of an approximate 8 acre tract located in the 1300 block south of 69th Avenue North. He explained that the property is bounded on the west by the Humboldt Square Shopping Center; on the north by 69th Avenue North and the City's Public Utility Building; on the east by single family residential homes facing Emerson Avenue North and on the south by a number of R5 Multiple Family Residential dwellings. The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted a letter re- questing the rezoning indicating that the site has remained undeveloped over the years, because of an apparent lack of a need for additional shopping centers . He stated the applicant intends to build quadra homes which he claims would ful- f � Y a need o add i tl Iona1 m�u i um.-pr"iced iwu� i ity ariu pro Vi ue an attractive buf er between the existing single family homes and the Humboidt square Shopping Center. The Secretary reported that the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for a site at the Northeast Neighborhood to be retained as Commercial for purposes of ultimate development as a neighborhood business center. He explained that the subject site and the present Humboldt Square Shopping Center is the area designated for the location of such a facility. He noted that the same applicant had requested a rezoning of the subject property from C2 to R1 under Application No. 77011 in March, 1977, and that the Planning Commission had reviewed the Comprehensive Plan inconsistencies and recommended that the Comprehensive Plan be amended for the following reasons: I . The Northeast Neighborhood is adequately served by shopping facilities, both within and near the neighborhood. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this area for further development as a neighborhood shopping center has been satisfied with the existing retail center. 3. There is substantial vacant commercial land elsewhere in the Northeast Neighborhood. 4. The owner has initiated a rezoning of the approximate 8 acre parcel from C2 to R1 . 5. The proposed use represents a reasonable use of the land and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan development goal for the Northeast Neighborhood. 1-11-79 -2- The Planning Commission, at that time, also recommended rezoning of the area through Planning Commission Resolution No. 77-3 citing that there is an additional need for Rl zoned land in the Northeast Neighborhood; that the existing Humboldt Square retail center adequately serves the neighborhood as a centrally located shopping center; that there is no need for additional C2 development in the area; and that the owner had proposed a zoning change which represents a reason- able use classification of the property. The Secretary explained that the City Council had been inclined to approve the rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan amendment in 1977, but continued its con- sideration of these matters until Mr. Bergstrom submitted a proposal which showed positive buffering of the property from the Humboldt Square Center. The screen- ing plans were never submitted, and the rezoning request was withdrawn. The Secretary further noted the Comprehensive Plan Goal which states "made single family detached housing the predominant character of the Northeast Neighborhood. " He explained that a March, 1976 land use inventory of the City was discussed by the Planning Commission during its review of the applicant's 1977 rezoning request. He stated that at that time, single family detached dwellings comprised 40.5% of the total number of dwellings in the Northeast Neighborhood, while townhouses and multiple family apartment units comprised 51 .4% of the total dwelling units for this neighborhood. He further stated that this land use inventory has been updated and that the figures are now about reversed, that single family dwellings comprise approximately 51% of the total dwelling units in the neighborhood and multiple family residential units comprise approximately 49 '. The Secretary also reported that he had requested the applicant to submit con- ceptual plans regarding his proposed development to better illustrate how it would meet the R4 district requirements, but that they had not yet been received. He stated that the Commission might want to table the application following this evening's public hearing rather than to refer it to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group until the applicant had submitted such conceptual plans for review. Chairman Pierce asked what was the allowable density for R4 Zoning. The Secretary responded that the orainance aiiows a density of is units per acre after deducting roadways and abutting setbacks and that approximately 50 units would be allowable. Chairman Pierce then recognized Mr. Bergstrom, who at that time supplied the Com- mission with four copies of his conceptual plans for the development. The Secretary noted that the proposal envisioned four plexes with each building under separate ownership and subject to a Rental Dwelling License. He went on to state that the City's concern is the maintenance of the common areas and the potential need for cross easements for driveway and parking areas. Commissioner Theis then asked for a clarification of the rent and ownership arrangement. The Secretary ex- plained that the development would essentially be four plexes with each building being under separate ownership probably for investment purposes. He added that owners could reside in one of the units or rent out all four units. The Secretary then asked for, and received, confirmation that a public street was contemplated adjacent to the development. While considering the plans, the Secretary recalled that the earlier proposed R1 development would have had to provide screening from the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. He stated that there are no screening re- quirements where R4 abuts C2, but that there would be screening requirements where the proposed R4 would abut R1 on the eastern side of the site. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pierce opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing and asked for comments from the audience as to the proposed rezoning. He recognized George Mayleben, 6824 Emerson Avenue North, who addressed the Commission on behalf of the neighborhood. Mr. Mayleben argued that the neighborhood was being decimated by multiple family development, and that there was not much available land for single family development. He cited Metro Plan calling for a certain percent of R1 development. 1-11-79 -3- Ine ecre ary intemected that while not familar, with the Metro Council 's require- ments for Rl development, he was aware that the (Metro Council was concerned with multiple family development as well . Mr. Mayleben replied that those living in the area of 69th and Humboldt Avenues are in an area with an abundance of multiple family dwellings. He stated that the neighbors living around the property in question had hoped that Mr. Bergstrom would continue with his single family de- velopment. He also cited growing concern in the neighborhood over declining school enrollments and the impact that multiple family development would have on declining entrollments. Tim Boyle, 6813 Emerson Avenue North, stated that he.was not in favor of the present rezoning application, while he had been 100% in favor of the R1 rezoning. Mr. Mayleben then asked whether the buffer was the reason why the R1 proposal had been dropped before, and why the R4 development was being proposed now. The Secretary stated that Mr. Bergstrom's 1977 R1 rezoning request had been deferred until he provided the City with a plan for screening the single family area from the Humboldt Square Shopping Center, and he did not know why Mr. Bergstrom with- drew that rezoning application for Rl . Mr. Mayleben expressed his feeling that the Northeast Neighborhood is still not predominantly single family residential development. Mr. Mayleben stressed the fact that west of Humboldt Avenue, there is a high concentration of multiple family development, and that a number of these apartments are, in fact, vacant. He also commented that he would probably favor a C2 development over an R4 development in this area. Chairman Pierce noted that C2 is the highest commercial zoning designation. He stated further that he had favored an Rl development when it was proposed pre- viously, but that the present application was for an R4 zoning. Chairman Pierce recognized the resident of 6804 Emerson Avenue North, who expressed the opinion that there were enough apartments in the immediate vicinity and that there was no need for more. Chairman Pierce inquired if anyone else wished to be heard. • No one spoke further relating to the application. CLOSE PI_Igl TC HEARTKI Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Hawes to close the public hearing on Application No. 79001 . The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Pierce asked Mr. Bergstrom why he did not pursue the R1 proposal . Mr. Bergstrom stated that the developer with whom he had previously been working did not have adequate financing. and that he had encountered technical problems building single family dwellings on the. high water table in the area . Commis- sioner Hawes asked Mr. Bergstrom how many single family dwellings had been con- templated. Mr. Bergstrom replied 23. Chairman Pierce asked the Secretary what other alternative zonings could be considered. The Secretary replied that the land in question could be zoned R3 for townhouses, but that Mr. Bergstrom had indicated he wanted to stay away from a development involving a Homeowners Associ- ation. Chairman Pierce stated that the proposed four plexes are similar to townhouses. Commissioner Hawes asked Mr. Bergstrom if the individual dwelling units could be owned. Mr. Bergstrom replied that eventually they could. The City Engineer commented that the developer was considering the possibility of eventually having each unit available for individual ownership, but that his short range goal was to develop rental units . Commissioner Theis inquired as to what other kinds of development would be allowed if the rezoning were approved. The City Engineer responded that multi residential uses of one and one-half or two stories in height are permitted. He cited Columbus Village as an example. MOTION TO TABLE APPLICATION NO. 79001 (Kenneth Bergstrom) • Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Theis, seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table the application and refer it to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. Voting in favor of the motion: Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Pierce, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: Commissioner Hawes . The motion passed. Commissioner Hawes indicated that he felt more inforl-liation was needed before referring the matter. 1-11-79 -4- A brief discussion ensued with Chairman Pierce commenting that the Commission should not look at a rezoning strictly on the basis of the availability of financing, rather, it was important for the Planning Consultant to gather input from the neighborhood and review the proposal in light of the Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary commented that while neighborhood feedback was desirable and necessary, it was not the sole determinant of whether the rezoning is appropriate, but that the Standards for Rezoning in the Ordinance are the criteria to be used. A discussion ensued concerning the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Lucht inquired whether information given to the Planning Commission could in turn be given to the Neighborhood Groups, citing acreage figures avail- able for multiple family and single family development. The Secretary replied in the affirmative. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:04 p.m. and resumed at 9:29 p.m. To Brooklyn Center Planning Commission • 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minn. 55430 Feb. 9, 1979 Minutes of the NE Neighborhood meeting of 2/8/79 held at B.e.H.S. Approximately 30 people present including Von Bergstrom, representing the petitioner, and Jerry Splinter and Ron Warren of the City. The .first item of discussion was Bergstrom's petition to rezone approximately 8 acres (application #79001) from C2 to R4. The citizens present were unanimous in their objection to the rezoning. Their arguments were basically as follows: The NE neighborhood is currently over balanced with to many multi-unit dwellings. It was felt that multi-unit buildings of the density rpoposed or of greater density as allowed by R4 would seriously affect the realestate values of the single family homes in the area. Homes ir. the area were purchased expecting the C2 use or possibly the R1 use requesteddtwo years ago. R1 would be the most preferred use, but C2 would be much preferred over R4. There would be no bemefit to the community from the rezoning. The only benefit of the change would be to the owner of the property. The second item of discussion centered arounfi reviewing the Comprehensive plan. The group had no recommended_ changes to make. The only question . that was raised was regarding a possible bike path along the south side of 69th Ave. and the undatina of the street itself and the need for additional right-of-way. This will have to be discussed again in the future when either of these become a more definite possibility. The other item discussed was the changing the present #169. The concern centered around the traffic problems that might arise. It was hoped that such a development would not be of the freeway type but more like what Brooklyn Blvd. is with aceess about every 3 or 4 blocks. ect 1 u witted by ss1 m. D. Hannay, Chairman Multiple-Family Residential Dwelling Units Existing and Potential, by. Neighborhood, January, 1979. Key: a) Existing b) Potential c) Total Neighborhood No. of Units % of Total Northwest a) 550 15.6 b) 22224 21.7 c) 774 17.0 . West Central - a) 387 11.0 b) 88 8.5 C) 475 10.4 Southwest a) 535 15.2 17 . 1 c) 711 15.6 Central t 387 1?. W Q b) 0 c) .387 .8.5 Southeast a) 332' 9.4 b) 356 34.6 c) 688 15.1 Northeast a) 1327 37.7 b) 186 18. 1 C), 1513 33.3 Multiple-Family Residential Units within 1, 000 ft. of Humboldt Avenue north of 65th Avenue North. Total No. of units 626 Percent of N.E. Neighborhood 47 .2 Percent of Total in City 17.8 Percent of Total Potential 13 .8 Section 35-208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose. The City Council finds that effective maintenance of -the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes -to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by -the adoption of Resolution No. 77-16/, 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 "spit zoning, " defined as a zoning.decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not rel3:te 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 guidelines which may be weighed_ collectively or individually as deemed by -the City. _ 40 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 contemplated 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 14road 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, configuration, 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 carrel? DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING DIRECTIONAL SIGNS Attached is a copy of a proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance relating to directional signs. The proposal would amend Section 34-140 2(b) to limit directional signs to an area of less than 16 sq. ft. and no more than 10 ft. in height. Presently the ordinance permits directional signs to be 36 sq. ft. and has no height limitation. By definition in Section 34-110, a directional sign is one in which the primary function is to provide iocational directions. An identification sign is defined as a sign, the primary function of which is to identify an establishment located on the premises where such sign is located, or to which such sign is affixed. Signs identifying industrial establishments may secondarily call attention to the products, goods or materials which are produced, processed,. assembled, or stored upon the premises. In zoning .districts Cl , C1A, and R3 through R7 identification signs are permitted provided they do not exceed a maximum area of 36 sq. ft. nor a height of 10 ft. from the ground. It seems inconsistent that a directional sign could be as large as an identification sign in these zoning districts and not have any height limitation. We have surveyed a number of existing directional signs and have found that the vast majority do not exceed 16 sq. ft. in area . It has also been the policy of the Planning and Inspection Department to encourage directional signs no greater than 16 sq. ft. in area because directional messages can be adequately provided on such a sign. Also, presently the Sign Ordinance permits only freestanding directional signs . It is fAlt that riirartinnal cinnc inriirati�n crirh thinnc a-c chinninn and raraivinn no pai`r. iily, iic 1a)ic, ciC. �iruiu iil cCi"'i.aiiI i;i� uni-J CL Cam, ur_ aiiuwcu vIY Wdiis. We will be prepared to discuss this matter in greater detail with the Commission at Thursday evening 's meeting. Enclosed is a suggested wording change to the Sign Ordinance which might address these concerns and also various sections from the Sign Ordinance relating to sign definitions and permitted signs not requiring a permit. 3-1-79 DRAFT ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING DIRECTIONAL SIGNS Section 34-140, Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit. b. Wall and freestanding site, pedestrian, vehiclular-traffic [,]' and parking Vdirectional signs as appropriatej, and other appropriate types of directional signs as approved by the Zoninq Official , provided such signs are less than thirty six 36 7 sixteen (16) square feet in area, and shall not extena more than t n, (]0) feet above the round level . Brackets indicate matter to be deleted. Underline indicates matter to be added. Chapter 34-110 (continued) record of survey map, or by metes and bounds, for the purpose of sale or lease or separate use thereof. Lot Line - A property boundary line of any lot held in single or separate ownership: Roof Line - That line at-which an exterior wall surface.of a building structure departs from a vertical plane. 0 Rummage Sale - The infrequent temporary display and sale, by an occupant on his premises , of personal property , including general household rummage , used clothing and appliances, provided; the exchange or sale of merchandise is con- ducted within the residence or accessory structure; the number of sales does not exceed four (4) per year; the duration of the sale does not exceed three (3) con- secutive days; any related signery shall be limited to the premises, shall conform with the sign ordinance provisions for home occupations and shall be removed at the termination of said sale; and the conduct of the sale does not encroach upon the peace, health, safety, or welfare of the citizens of Brooklyn Center. Setback - The minimum horizontal distance from a building, hedge, fence, wall or structure to the street or lot line . Sin - Any publicly displayed message-bearing device for visual communi- cation or any attention attracting device that is used primarily for the purpose of bringing the s>>biert thPrPof to the attPnr;on of the rn,b.lir. i_ncl.uding anv 1?anner, pennant, symbol, valance or similar display . Sign Structure - The supports , uprights, bracing and framework for a sign Including the sign surface itself. In the case of a wall sign, the sign surface constitutes the sign structure. In the case of a sign structure consisting of two or more sides, where the interior angle formed between any of the sides exceeds 15 degrees each side shall be considered a separate sign structure. Sign Directional_ - A sign, the primary function of which is to provide locations 1 directions. _Sign, Identification - A sign, the primary function of which is to identify an establishment located upon the premises where such sign is located, or to which such sign is affixed. Signs identifying industrial establishments may • secondarily call attention to the products, goods or materials which are produced, processed, assembled, or stored upon the premises. Sign Illuminated - Any sign upon which artificial light is directed or which has an interior light source. Chapter 34-110 (continued) Sign, Informational - Any sign which conveys information and which cannot be classified as a directional, or identification sign. Sign, Flashing - Any illuminated sign on which the artificial light or color Is not maintained at a constant intensity or color when such sign is in use, except for that portion of a sign providing public service information such as time, weather, date, temperature or similar information. Sign, Freestanding - A sign which is not affixed to any part of any building and which is rather supported by upright braces or posts placed in the ground. Sign, Gross Surface Area of - The maximum projected area as viewed from any point, calculated as follows. A polygon with a single continuous perimeter whose sides are made up of straight lines (which in no case pass through or between any adjacent elements of the sign and whose interior angles are each less than 130°) . However, such perimeter shall not include any structural elements (forms , braces, posts, etc.) lying outside the limits of such sign surface and not forming an integral part of the display. Sign, Portable - A sign so designed as to be movable from one location to another and not permanently attached to the ground or to any immobile structure. A portable sign may consist of a mobile structure such as a semi-truck trailer or other device whose primary function during a specific time period is to serve as a • sign. Sign, Projecting - A sign which is affixed to the wall of a building and extends outward from the building wall. Sign,Roof - A sign erected or attached in whole or in part upon the roof of a building , or a non-freestanding sign which projects above the roof line of a respective building . Sign, Temporary - A sign which is erected or displayed for a limited period of time. Sign, Wall - A sign which is affixed upon and parallel to the wall of a building. Street Line - The common boundary line of a street right-of-way and abutting property. Use - The purpose or activity for which the land or building thereon is designated, arranged or intended, or for which it is occupied .or maintained. Chapter 34-140 (continued) i. Wall Signs on office buildings shall be of a uniform design compatible with the exterior appearance of the building. • 2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit a . Identification signs for one and two family dwellings provided that such signs are less than two (2) square feet in area . (l\,Tote: Home occupation signs are covered by Section 34-140, Subdivision 3C (1) J b. Freestanding site pedestrian vehicular-traffic, and parking directional signs as appropriate, provided such signs are less than thirty-six (36) square feet in area . c. Traffic control signs, noncom_-narcial governmental signs, legal notices, railroad crossing signs and temporary nonadvertising safety or emergency signs. 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 . 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._y 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.