Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 04-25 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85007 Applicant: Sign Service, Inc. Location: 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from the Sign Ordinance on behalf of Bob Ryan Olds- mobile to presumably erect an 8' x 10' freestanding identification sign at the Ryan Oldsmobile dealership, 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard. There exist on the site three roof signs which exceed the height and area allowed by the Sign Ordinance. These were allowed under a variance granted in 1975 which forbade any other freestanding signery on the site. The Sign Ordinance would normally allow two freestanding identification signs for this type of outdoor sales and display activity. The first freestanding sign can be up to 250 sq. ft. The second .sign can be up to 125 sq. ft. The maximum height of either sign is 32' . Roof signs are not to exceed the height of freestanding signs (or 6' above the roof line; whichever is less) and are in lieu of freestanding signs. At present, therefore, Ryan Olds has one more roof sign than is permitted and all three roof signs are higher than the 23' 6" allowed by ordinance (the roof line is at a height of 17' 6") . Again, this situation was acknowledged by variance Application No. 75004 in lieu of all other freestanding identification signery on the site. The applicant has submitted a brief letter (attached) addressing the Standards for a Sign Variance. In it, he states that Ryan Oldsmobile and Mazda has established a leasing operation on the site and that a hardship will occur if they are not permitted to identify their daily and weekly rental . Regarding uniqueness, he states that a second freestanding sign cannot be granted because the present wall signs are identi- fied as roof signs. Regarding detriment to public welfare and neighboring property he points out that other auto agencies in the immediate area have additional free- standing signs. It should be pointed out that the sign the applicant seeks approval for is a legal sign under normal circumstances. The prior granting of a sign variance for this property, however, makes the circumstances of this case other than normal . The sign variance granted under Application No. 75004 allowed for three roof signs approxi- mately 39' above the point where the wall departs from a vertical plane. Since roof signs are allowed to be no more than 6' above this point, the variance was 33' in height above the maximum allowed. The applicant has made the argument that these existing signs are wall signs and should not limit the right to freestanding signs on the property. That interpretation was clearly not a part of the rationale for the sign variance granted under Application No. 75004. Indeed, there would have been no need for a variance had the signs been construed as wall signs. The Planning Commission has essentially three options with respect to this application: 1. It can affirm the reasoning of Application No. 75004 and deny this Appli- cation as violating the conditions of that variance (see Council minutes attached) . 2. It can find that Application No. 75004 was in error and that the existing signs on top of Ryan Oldsmobile are wall signs rather than roof signs; therefore, no variance is needed and the site in question is entitled to two freestanding identification signs. The Commission' s attention is directed to the definitions for "Sign, Freestanding" , "Sign, Roof" , and "Sign, Wall " (attached) . It is believed that a careful review of these defi ni ti ons, 1 eads one to conclude that the signs in question are roof signs, not wall signs. 4-25-85 -1- Application No. 85007 continued 3. Lastly, the Commission can act to amend the action taken under Appli- cation No. 75004 and allow the proposed 8' x 10' sign. This might be done by interpreting the three sign panels on the roof as a single sign, rather than 'three signs, thereby allowing a freestanding/roof sign, namely the one proposed.. It should be pointed out, however, that the Sign Ordinance defines as two separate signs any two faces at more than a 150 angle to each other. The existing roof signs are at 900 to each other. Staff recommendation is, therefore, to affirm the original decision of Application No. 75004. Regarding the Standards for a Sign Variance, it seems difficult to claim a hardship in this case. The strict letter of the ordinance has never been in effect and the owner of the property has lived for ten years within the conditions of Application No. 75004. The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based - that a new business has been started on the property - do not seem at all unique. Multiple businesses quite often occupy the same property, but that is no reason to add more and more to the allowable signery for a given parcel . Businesses that share land must share allowable signery as well . Finally, the applicant argues that no one will be hurt by the additional sign since other auto dealers have at least one freestand- ing sign each. Perhaps this is true. Perhaps i 9 p ps t is also true that one more sign in this area of Brooklyn Boulevard will hardly be noticed. There is so much visual pollution and sign overkill between I-94 and 70th Avenue North that the impact of one additional sign may well be marginal . Of course, we are forced to wonder how much benefit such a sign can bring. If Ryan Oldsmobile is allowed freestanding signs because others have them, will others be granted height variances for roof signs be- cause Ryan Oldsmobile received one? We fail to see sufficient reasons for amending or overturning the action taken under Application No. 75004. It is, therefore, recommended that this application be denied on the grounds that the Standards for a Sign Variance are not met. 4-25-85 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85008 Applicant: Ryan Construction Company Location: 6200 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests amended special use permit approval to operate a drive-up bank facility in the office building under construction at 6200 Shingle Creek Parkway. The property in question is zoned I-1 and is bounded on the north by the Brookdale Corpor- ate Center office building, on the east by the west leg of Earle Brown Drive, on the south by Summit Drive, and on the west by Shingle Creek Parkway. All access to the site is off Earle Brown Drive. A drive-up bank facility is a special use in the I-1 zoning district (as is the office building) , but the parking requirement for a bank is greater than that for the office building generally on a per-unit-of-space basis. The bank space within the building is to be approximately 4,000 sq. ft. in area. The parking requirement for financial institutions is the same as the retail parking re- quirement; that is, 11 spaces for the first 1 ,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 8 spaces for each additional 1 ,000 sq. ft. up to 15,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The bank space, therefore, requires 11 + (3 x 8) = 35 parking spaces. The remaining 112, 640 sq. ft. of office space in the building require parking based on the follow- ing formula G.F.A./( .0005 x G.F.A. ) + 190 (G.F.A. = Gross Floor Area) . This works out to one space per 246.32 sq. ft. of gross floor area, or 457 spaces. Adding these two requirements results in a total parking requirement of 492 spaces for the building. A proof-of-parking plan has been submitted which shows a potential of 492 parking spaces on the site of this southerly office building. These spaces are accomplished by eliminating three and one-half planter islands. The original approved plan (Appli- cation No. 81012) provided for 470 potential stalls for each office building. A proof-of-parking for medical use in the north building also eliminated the planter islands on that site (special use permit Application No. 82047) . These islands would not actually be removed from the parking lot unless the City were to find that a parking deficiency existed on the site. Aside from available parking, the application also raises traffic concerns associated with the bank drive-up lanes. The four drive-up lanes are to be located on the east side of the building. Bank customers would enter the site via an access slightly south of the buidling. Cars using the drive-up lanes will turn right almost immedi- ately and stack between the drive-up teller stations and the driving lane running along the south side of the building. The concern of staff is that the stacking associated with the bank drive-up may back up into this lane, hindering entrance to the site, perhaps to the point of affecting the flow of traffic in Earle Brown Drive. Another concern is that the peak business hours for the bank, particularly Friday afternoon, will lead to conflicts between cars willing to enter the site for banking and cars exiting both office buildings and moving into the right-turn lane of south- bound Earle Brown Drive. Ryan Construction intends to place a number of 15 minute parking signs on the south side of the building in the vicinity of the bank entrance to help facilitate bank patrons who wish to avoid any back-up in the driving lanes. This is certainly one measure which would help to mitigate staff' s concerns regarding traffic. Nevertheless, staff are seriously concerned that, if the bank ' s business grows, there may be a serious traffic problem affecting the public streets. We would recommend further that permit approval be conditioned on the southerly access being moved north of the building if the City determines that a traffic problem related to operation of the bank exists in Earle Brown Drive. 4-25-85 -1- Application No. 85008 continued The above comments have all been related primarily to standard (d)of the Standards for a Special Use Permit (attached) . No written material has been submitted addressing these standards or the specific standards applying to commercial uses located in the I-1 zoning district. Staff find no conflict between the bank use in this location and the general standards contained in Section 35-220. The bank should generally enhance the public welfare; will not diminish property values; and will not impede normal and orderly development on adjacent land. The specific standards contained in Section 35-330 call for commercial uses to be compatible and complementary to existing adjacent land uses and of comparable intensity to other land uses permitted in the I-1 district. The drive-up bank use is poten- tially more intense than the office uses on surrounding land, but does seem to be compatible and complementary to those offices. The bank is certainly not more intense than the retail uses anticipated south of Summit Drive. The activity levels, at peak hours, however, will certainly exceed the normal traffic levels for permitted I-1 district uses. In terms of internal activities, the bank is less intense. Further- more, the bank, along with other even more intense uses,is comprehended by Section 35-330 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff, therefore, see no reason to deny the proposed bank use as long as the traffic impact can be effectively managed on the site. Ap- proval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The certificate of occupancy for the bank shall be subject to the installation of 15 minute parking signs at no less than 10 stalls on the south side of the office buidling. 3. The applicant shall agree in writing that the south entrance to the site off Earle Brown Drive shall be relocated to a point-north of the office building upon a determination by the City that a traffic problem related to the operation of the bank exists in Earle Brown Drive. Said agreement to be executed prior to the issuance of the special use permit and prior to building permits for the bank space and shall be filed with the title to the property. 4. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5. Permit approval acknowledges a proof-of-parking plan received April 11 , 1985 from Ryan Construction Company providing 492 parking stalls on site. If it becomes necessary to install some deferred spaces, those located in the Earle Brown Drive greenstrip shall be installed first and those potentially under the landscaped islands installed last. 6. The applicant shall agree in writing to install proof-of-parking spaces upon a determination by the City that a parking deficiency exists on the e site. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of building permits for the bank. 4-25-85 -2-