The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC88018 - 11/10/88 - 6800 Shingle Creek Pkwy,%MW N%UW PLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date- �f�z FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application No. BRG��B PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: PLAN REFERENCE Note: If a plan was found in the file during the purge process, it was pulled for consolidation of all plans. Identified below are the types of plans, if any, that were consolidated. • Site Plans • Building Plans • Other: FILE REFERENCE Note: The following documents were purged when this project file became inactive. We have recorded the information necessary to retrieve the documents. Document Type Date Range Location Agenda Cover Sheet: Planning Commission Agenda Book Minutes: Planning Commission 1,1161se City Vault Minutes: City Council ifi9�/Kt� City Vault Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault Historical Photographs: Planning Commission City Archieve CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER • PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION Application No. 88018 Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway (North side facing 69th Av) Legal Description of Property Tract B RLS#1360 Owner Polo Investment Company Address P. 0. Box 29068, Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 Phone No. ---- Applicant Packaging Plus, Incorporated (tenant) Address 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway, Mp 1 s . , Mn. 55430 Phone No. 566-0180 Type of Request: Rezoning X Variance Subdivision Approval Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit X Other: City Council Amending Resolution Description of Request: I request that I be placed on the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission's agenda, of November 10, 1988, pursuant to a temporary or permanent variance in the sign ordinance or an amending resolution of Resolution No. 77-67 per the attached pleadings The applicant requests processing of this application and agrees to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center, within fifteen (15) days after mailing or delivery of the billing state- ment, the actual costs incurred by the City for Engineering, Planning and Legal expenses reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the processing of the application. Such costs shall be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of the application shall not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal. '1 Fee $ 50.00 Receipt No78639 mes R. Mon gomery Applicant's nature 'Secretary -Treasure Date: Sep er 30, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration: #� Approved Denied this day of *&am 19_A2r, subject to the T following conditions: M Dates of Council Consideration: Approved amendment: man CITY COUNCIL ACTION Denied this Z�tday of 199S', with the following P/I Form No. 18 (over please) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 88018 Applicant: Packaging Plus, Inc. Location: 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance from City Council Resolution No. 77- 67, which governs wall signery along the north walls of 6800, 6820, and 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway, to allow wall signs not more than 11 feet above the building floor grade. The property in question (6800 Shingle Creek Parkway) is zoned I-1 and is bounded on the north by 69th Avenue North, on the east by the Earle Brown Farm Apartments, on the south by Medtronic and Shingle Creek Parkway, and on the west by the Speculative Industrial Building #5 (6820 Shingle Creek Parkway). Signs are permitted accessory uses in the I-1 zoning district. However, City Council Resolution No. 77-67 (attached) limits the height of signs along the north wall of 6800, 6820 and 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway to no more than five (5) feet above the building floor grade. The applicant, Mr. James Montgomery, has submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues for a "temporary or permanent variance per Section 34-180 of the Sign Ordinance" (also attached). He notes that the sign was put up (and paid for) by Porter Signs without a permit and was removed by Packaging Plus on September 24, 1988. As to the standards for a sign variance contained in Section 34-180, Mr. Montgomery argues that they have experienced a hardship for seven years with customers and vendors having difficulty in locating their office. He adds that it would be an additional hardship to have paid for the sign and receive no benefit from it. He states that the proposed sign is appropriate for visitors circling the building looking for the tenant space. He adds that the sign which has been constructed is too large and fragile to be placed at the 5' height limit and would probably be vandalized. With regard to uniqueness, Mr. Montgomery states that the resolution governing signery on the north sides of these buildings testifies to the uniqueness of them. He argues that his business is unique from others in the building in the number of customers that come to his offices. With regard to possible detriment to the public welfare, Mr. Montgomery discusses the aesthetics of the proposed sign and argues that it is definitely not a blight on the surroundings. He points out that landscaping and berming in the buffer strip along 69th obscure the sign about 90% and that residents probably won't object. Mr. Montgomery concludes his letter by offering a revision of City Council Resolution No. 77-67. The revision would allow signs up to 11 feet above the building floor elevation. Staff are not convinced that there is a particular hardship suffered by placing the sign below the 5' height limit. People traveling around the building in search of Packaging Plus are just as, if not more, likely to see a lower sign than a higher sign. While it would be easier to vandalize a lower sign, it would also be easier to repair and maintain. With respect to uniqueness, we do not regard Packaging Plus as a unique business along 69th Avenue North. To allow Packaging Plus to have a sign 11' high would certainly open the door to all other businesses along 69th to have 11-10-88 -1- Application No. 88018 continued such signs. This is no doubt why Mr. Montgomery recommends at the conclusion to his letter an amendment to Resolution No. 77-67 to allow all the businesses along 69th to have signs up to 11' above building floor grade. We do not support such a revision as it would be an unnecessary intrusion into the visual environment of the residential neighborhood to the north. There is no access to the industrial buildings from 69th Avenue North. There is, therefore, no need to identify tenants along the north sides of those buildings. With respect to detriment to the public, the applicant argues that the proposed sign is aesthetically pleasing and offends no one. It may well be an attractive sign, but it is the intrusion such a sign makes into the visual environment of the residential neighborhood along 69th Avenue North which Resolution No. 77-67 seeks to preclude. Whether the sign is attractive or not is not the issue. The fact is it would constitute an unnecessary message bombarding the consciousness of those who drive or live along 69th Avenue North. We strongly recommend that the variance request be denied and that City Council Resolution No. 77-67 be kept as is. The following findings are recomended as a basis for the denial: 1. The proposed sign was fabricated and erected in error without a proper permit. The City, therefore, accepts no responsbility for the lost value of the sign. 2. There is no access to the industrial buildings along the south side of 69th Avenue North. There is, therefore, no need to communicate a message to those driving along 69th Avenue North. 3. The proposed sign would constitute an unnecessary intrusion into the visual environment of the residential neighborhood north of 69th Avenue North. 4. A sign not more than 5' high is very readable to people on the property looking for a given business on the premises. 5. The Packaging Plus business at 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway is not a unique sort of business relative to other businesses located in the buildings adjacent to 69th Avenue North. 6. The standards for a sign variance contained in Section 34-180 are not met in this situation. 11-10-88 -2- .'n Nlmmm ■. memo �nSIMON OR m �� m �m m,� rim son oil