Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-015 Inf Sheet 1108 Brookdale Center Application Filed on 8-15-02 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 10-14-02 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2002-015 Applicant: Spectacular Electronic Advertising Location: Brookdale Center Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment The applicant, Spectacular Electronic Advertising on behalf of Brookdale Center, is seeking a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to allow certain signs at Brookdale Center that would exceed the number, height, area and display features authorized as part of the Brookdale Planned Unit Development and the Sign Ordinance. The property in question is zoned PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) and is bounded on the north by County Road 10; on the east and southeast by T.H. 100; and on the west by Xerxes Avenue North. A Planned Unit Development rezoning from C-2 (Commerce) to PUD/C-2 of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center was approved by the City Council under Resolution No. 99-37 on March 8, 1999. Attached for the Commission’s review is a copy of that resolution containing the various findings, considerations and conditions of approval for that proposal, which consisted of the rezoning of the property and development plan approval for the expansion, redevelopment and rejuvenation of Brookdale Center. Condition No. 7 of the approval (found on the 4th page) states that the plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances with the exception of allowing two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along T.H. 100. The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development amendment for exceptions to the approved PUD and the Sign Ordinance in order to be allowed to erect: Two 3-sided freestanding signs to be located along T.H. 100, each of which would be 55 ft. high, approximately 650 sq. ft. in area per face, contain a flashing/chasing or motion message and may also contain off premise advertising. One 3-sided freestanding sign (to replace the existing freestanding sign) located on County Road 10 at the Northway Drive entrance, which would be 32 ft. high, approximately 281 sq. ft. in area, contain a flashing/chasing or motion message and may also contain off premise advertising. The City’s Sign Ordinance regulates the type, number, structure, size, location, height, lighting and the erection and maintenance of all outdoor signs and sign structures within the city. Per the Sign Ordinance, Brookdale is allowed outdoor signery for commercial uses located in a C-2 zone. For freestanding signs, which are the subject of this PUD amendment, Brookdale, under the Sign Ordinance, is entitled to one freestanding sign along each street frontage that exceeds 400 ft. (3-T.H. 100, County Road 10 and Xerxes Avenue). Each sign cannot exceed 250 sq. ft. in area and 32 ft. in height. Brookdale’s PUD rezoning authorized two freestanding signs along T.H. 100 not to exceed 320 sq. ft. in area. The finding or justification outlined in Resolution No. 99-37 (found on the third page of the resolution) for this modification from the Sign Ordinance was the “uniqueness of the size, diversity of uses and significance of Brookdale Mall. The Planning Commission report that is part of the PUD record cited the fact that the amount of frontage Brookdale had on T.H. 100 exceeded 3,500 lineal feet and that, given the amount of street frontage, it seemed reasonable to allow two freestanding signs along the T.H. 100 right of way. The 320 sq. ft. maximum size equals the largest allowable square footage for any sign authorized by the Sign Ordinance, that being a “new project identification sign” for a project with a land area over 10 acres. The size of Brookdale and the unique nature of the regional shopping center were basically the justification for the modification to allow two 320 sq. ft. signs along T.H. 100 rather than one 250 sq. ft. sign. As the Commission is aware, the PUD process involves a rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha-numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing that district (in this case C-2) apply to the development proposal unless the City determines that another standard or use would be appropriate given mitigating circumstances that are offset by the plans submitted by the developer. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing development and redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to meeting the City’s Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines that are contained in Section 35-208 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Also, proposals must be consistent with Section 35-355 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which addresses Planned Unit Developments. Attached for the Commission’s review are copies of Section 35-208 and 35-355 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance for review. As mentioned previously, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the overall PUD for the Brookdale redevelopment. That resolution contained the various findings and considerations necessary for approving that PUD. For the most part, these findings and considerations were made given the applicant’s proposed use and this proposed amendment is to deviate further from the modifications already allowed for signery on the site. Any approval of the PUD amendment should acknowledge compatibility with the Policy and Review Guidelines of the previously mentioned Section 35-208 and also the provisions of Section 35-355 of the Zoning Ordinance. Attached is a copy of the site plan for the Brookdale Planned Unit Development showing the proposed locations of signs contemplated in this PUD amendment. The proposed amendment must be consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses in the area. The proposed amendment should be offset by factors related to the development. Also, the overall development must be a reasonable use of the property and be considered to be in the best interest of the community. Signery proposals for PUD’s are for the most part not part of the development plans. However, proposed modifications to the Sign Ordinance can be considered provided these modifications are consistent with the PUD approval and are appropriate given mitigating circumstances that are offset by the plans of the development proposal. As previously mentioned, Brookdale’s PUD approval authorized two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area on Brookdale’s property along T.H. 100. The rest of the signery was to be consistent with the City’s Sign Ordinance (Chapter 34). Specific sections of the Sign Ordinance that affect the applicant’s proposal are the following (attached): Section 34-100. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare within the City by the establishment of comprehensive standards, regulations and procedures governing the erection, use or display of devices serving as visual communications media; to promote and preserve aesthetics within the City; to preserve the residential character of residential neighborhoods; to preserve order and cleanliness; to avoid the appearance of clutter; to avoid litter and the growth of weeds around signs; to provide for necessary visual communication, to preserve and promote a pleasant physical environment, to protect public and private property, and to encourage safety upon the streets and highways within the City of Brooklyn Center by preserving sight lines and reducing distractions to motorists; and to reduce administrative burdens by regulating the type, number, structure, size, location, height, lighting and the erection and maintenance of all outdoor signs and sign structures within said City. The City Council finds that off premise advertising signs constitute traffic safety hazards and are unattractive. The provisions of this chapter regulating off premise advertising signs are consistent with other efforts within the City to enhance aesthetics and promote traffic safety, such as regulations pertaining to solid waste disposal, anti littering and traffic safety. Section 34-110. DEFINITIONS. Off Premise Advertising Sign. (Billboard). A sign that directs attention to a business, commodity, service, or entertainment not exclusively related to the premises on which the sign is located or to which it is affixed. Sign – Any publicly displayed message bearing device for visual communication or any attention attracting device that is used primarily for the purpose of bringing the subject thereof to the attention to the public including any banner, pennant, symbol, valance or similar display. 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, 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. Section 34-130. PROHIBITED SIGNS. 4. Flashing signs including indoor signs which are visible from the public streets. With the exception of search lights which may be approved in conjunction with an administrative permit as provided in Section 35-800 of the City Ordinances, no rotating beam, beacon or flashing illumination shall be used in conjunction with any display. Off premise advertising signs except as otherwise permitted by Section 34 –140 and Section 35-800 of the City Ordinances. Signs advertising a business no longer operating on the premises shall be deemed off premise advertising signs and must be abated in accordance with Section 34-140.1j. The modifications to the PUD or Sign Ordinance that must be made to approve the applicant’s request are the following: Allow a three faced sign which by Sign Ordinance definition is considered three separate signs. The applicant’s request is for, in effect, nine signs at three separate locations that are only allowed to have a single sign. It should be noted that a two faced (back to back) sign is considered a single sign provided the interior angle formed between the sides of the sign do not exceed 15 degrees. Allow a flashing sign to accommodate the chasing message or motion sign proposed for the lower portion of the sign containing the running message. Allow an approximate 650 sq. ft. sign area (per face) rather than the 320 sq. ft. sign area for the two signs along T.H. 100, which were allowed by the PUD approval. Allow 55 ft. high signs rather than the maximum 32 ft. high signs along T.H. 100 which are authorized by the Sign Ordinance. Allow an approximate 281 sq. ft. sign area (per face) rather than the 250 sq. ft. sign area for the proposed new sign at the County Road 10/Northway Drive entrance. Allow for the potential that these signs would include off premise advertising (or a billboard) as proposed by the applicant and prohibited under the Sign Ordinance. The applicant has submitted their written request (attached) along with a site plan of Brookdale showing the location for the three 3-sided signs. They list 14 reasons why the City should give consideration to their requested sign expansions. Basically, they argue that more numerous, bigger, taller, flashier, more visible signs are necessary for Brookdale. They incorrectly point out that no signs have been approved to be installed on County Road 10 (there is one at the County Road 10/Northway Drive entrance). They add that their proposal will eliminate instances that individual businesses will apply for their own signs avoiding a “hodge podge or clutters of unsightly signs on the mall property”. It should be noted that the Sign Ordinance limits freestanding signs to collectively identifying tenants or the complex. Wall signs are currently limited to collective or tenant identification as well and can only be allowed up to ten percent of the wall area. We do not anticipate a proliferation of freestanding signs or wall signs at Brookdale given the current Sign Ordinance requirements and Brookdale’s own sign regulations only allow selective tenants to have exterior signage on the building. Again, no anticipated proliferation of signs is ever expected at Brookdale nor would they be allowed. Argument No. 10 made by the applicant might be considered disturbing given the City’s Statement of Purpose in its Sign Ordinance. I don’t know that it is desirable to establish “landmark signs in the area and will become a standard for others to meet or beat”. It is arguable that this will “dramatically improve the signs in the area”. If the City allows larger, higher, flashier and off premise advertising signs without an appropriate Planned Unit Development finding and justification, we will constantly be faced with and challenged by other commercial establishments that think they need comparable signs to be competitive (especially with Brookdale). Such a challenge could be successful if our findings are not adequate and supportable. The applicant also cites competition with Ridgedale Mall which has a very large sign. They note that to effectively compete with them, it is imperative that Brookdale have adequate signage in order to be able to maintain itself as a viable business. A quick review of the Sign Ordinances and regulations for other regional malls such as Minnetonka (Ridgedale), Edina (Southdale), Bloomington (Mall of America and Southtown Center) and Roseville (Rosedale) indicates that Brookdale signery is already competitive, and in fact in many cases, exceeds allowable signery at these major retail centers even without the expanded signs allowed by the Brookdale PUD. Ridgedale is governed by a covenant agreed to between the developer and the City of Minnetonka, which regulates outside signs, both freestanding and wall signs. Freestanding signery at the center is allowed only to have the words “Ridgedale Center” and no other tenant or business identification is allowed on the freestanding signs. Major stores and restaurants are allowed wall identification signs only. Minnetonka does not permit motion or running signs and no billboards or off premise advertising signs are allowed. Three sided signs are considered to be separate signs. The freestanding signs allowed for Ridgedale are on 394 and Plymouth Road. The 394 sign is approximately 400 sq. ft. in area. In Edina, Southdale Center is allowed signery the same as other commercial establishments in that zoning district. Wall signs are allowed to be up to 15 percent of the wall area. One freestanding sign not to exceed 100 sq. ft. in area is allowed to identify Southdale Center on one street frontage. A second freestanding sign not to exceed of 50 sq. ft. in area is allowed on another frontage. The maximum height of these signs is 20 ft. No motion or running signs are allowed and billboards or off premise advertising signs are not allowed as well. In Bloomington, the Mall of America signery is considered separate from the Bloomington Sign Ordinance. The allowable signs are as approved in the development agreement. On the north and south sides of the mall are freestanding signs and also freestanding letters on ground. The major tenants such as Nordstrom’s, Bloomingdale’s, etc. are allowed wall signs, the rest of the tenants are allowed no exterior signs either wall or freestanding. No motion signs or off premise advertising signs (other than pre-existing signs) are allowed in Bloomington. A three sided sign would be considered to be more than one sign. It is the opinion of the Bloomington staff that large, chasing, motion or running signs don’t attract more business and that these signs don’t make the centers more competitive. They also added that the Mall of America has surprisingly few signs. In Roseville, Rosedale is not considered a special exception but rather is allowed the same signery allowed for other commercial establishments located in the same zoning districts. Rosedale is allowed freestanding signs on major frontage such as Hwy 36, County Road B2, Fairview and Snelling. The size of the sign is limited to 100 sq. ft. in area and no higher than 20 ft. Currently they have two such signs. Chasing, motion, or flashing signs are not allowed in Roseville and billboards or off premise advertising signs other than existing non-conforming signs are prohibited. Certainly, Brookdale’s allowable signery is competitive with the major shopping centers in these four other communities. PROCEDURE As pointed out previously, this proposal is an amendment to the Planned Unit Development approval granted for the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center. As a Planned Unit Development amendment, the proposal is required to follow the procedures required for the original Planned Unit Development. This requires a public hearing, which has been scheduled. Notices of the Commission’s consideration have been sent and a notice has been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. The Planning Commission must decide if the applicant’s proposed PUD amendment to allow certain signs at Brookdale to exceed the number, height, area and display features authorized as part of the Planned Unit Development or by the Sign Ordinance is consistent with and compatible with the Planned Unit Development section of the City Ordinances. The Commission may wish to discuss various aspects of the proposal and to what extent such amendments may be considered appropriate. Concern is expressed especially with allowing flashing or chasing messages particularly along T.H. 100 and the authorizing of off premise advertising signs. These signs specifically seem inconsistent with the statement of purpose outlined in Section 34-100 of the Sign Ordinance. Also, the question of the number of signs is important. Interpreting the ordinance to allow three sided signs as one sign should be reviewed carefully. The question of height and area may be debatable. The Planning Commission is also cautioned that to allow modifications to the PUD that are not justified or cannot be considered compatible with the PUD approval, could potentially lead to challenges opening the door for off premise advertising signs, flashing signs and much larger signs at other commercial locations. A draft Planning Commission Resolution will be prepared outlining the Commission’s consideration of this matter and contain necessary considerations and conditions for a recommended approval, approval in part, denial or denial in part. 9-12-02 Page 2