Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC85007 - 4/25/85 - 6700 Brooklyn BlvdINNING COMMISSION FILE CK.,c;KLIST File Purge Date:';��' FILE INFORMATION Project Number: Ste' see aix, cry PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: Gam! 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 Ranae Location Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission City Vault Minutes: City Council City Vault Document Type Number Location Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY FILES CHECKLIST PLANNING C(HIMI:;'Ji ON APPLICATION Application No. 85007 Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property G70C Brooklyn Coul evard Legal Description of Property 6o b Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. - Brooklyn Centef Owner B o b Ryan Address 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard Phone No.561-8800 Applicant Sign Service, Inc. Address 1016 North 5th Street - Minneapolis, HN 55411 Phone No. 340-9380 Type of Request: Rezoning Subdivision Approval a X Variance Site .& Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit . Other: Description of Request: Installing ( 1 ) freestanding"sign 8' 4 3/4" X 10' C' from ground to bottom of sign. 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 pro cessin f the application. Such costs shall be in addition to the application ee descr!be he ein. Withdrawal of the application shall not relieve the applicant of obligt' n o pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal. Fee $ 50.00 Receipt No. 66826 C . L• . IM�gi ne `/ Applicant-s bignature Date: April 11, 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration:. , Approved Denied this day of. 19 5 subject to the following conditions: a r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CITY COUNCIL ACTION ptes of Council Consideration: pproved Denied this day of 19 with the following mendment: e P/1 Form No. 18 (over please) 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, bull" (attached). It is believed that a careful review of these definitions, leads one to conclude that the signs in question are roof signs, not stall 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 it 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- \: Y < )" d NE , 0 + FT-1 Z- LA <11�'Vlx lK / e\lx rp;7Frw,&y > mim CA? 63 RD > EET � CITY� (��97RDO STATE , DEALER _CLASS /, FRANCHISE CyJ� PRIORITY SCHEDULE iTTREET CITY STATE DEALER CODE NO. SIGN MANUFACTURE `i i the main This survey is for: Main -dealership facility or ❑ Off -site location at (Street Address) mediately Which is a (specify) �t � a 3q _ o 5_ b" MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION APRIL 25, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht explained that Commissioners Sandstrom and Nelson had called to say they would be unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 11, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the April 11, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Manson. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85007 (Sign Service, Inc.) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to erect an 8' x 10' freestanding identification sign at 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85007 attached). Commissioner Malecki asked whether other dealerships in the area with freestanding signs received variances for those freestanding signs. The Secretary responded in the negative, except for Iten Chevrolet which received a height variance for its sign prior to the adoption of the current Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Manson noted that the sign for Iten Leasing had to be shortened to meet the requirements of a roof sign and was in compliance with the ordinance. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. C. L. McCline of Sign Service, Inc. told the Planning Commission that he was in an embarassing situation. He explained that last fall Ryan Olds went into the leasing business and wanted a sign to announce its rates. At that time, he checked with Building Official Will Dahn and was told that he could have such a sign. He explained that Mr. Dahn had not checked on the previous variance of 10 years ago. He noted that the Sign Ordinance allows for two freestanding signs for a business such as Ryan Olds. He went on to explain that there had been a delay in putting up the sign since last fall. He stated that he fabricated the sign and applied for a sign permit and put up the sign before the permit was issued. He stated that he proceeded on the basis that the sign was permitted because of his conversation with Building Official Will Dahn. Mr. McCline showed the Planning Commission a picture of the sign panels on the top of the Ryan Olds building. He stated that he felt that these panels were part of the wall and that the signs were, therefore, wall signs. He asked that the Ccmmission consider the signs as wall signs and, therefore, allow the freestanding signs normally permitted to an automobile dealership. 4-25-85 -1- PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85007) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Mr. Tom Ryan of Ryan Olds explained that the car dealership got into the rental car business last fall. He stated that the sign was erected on the assumption that it would be all right. He explained to the Planning Commission that, before his father owned the car dealership, there were signs in the same area advertising Velie Oldsmobile. He stated that because of the material of the building which picked up a shadow of the sign on the wall, it would have looked ugly not to replace the Velie Olds sign when the business changed hands in 1975. He noted that there are other signs on the site including a freestanding sign and a number of wall signs. Chairman Lucht asked about the freestanding sign. The Secretary explained that it is a directional sign and does not count toward freestanding identification signery which was excluded by the 1975 variance (Application No. 75004) . He stated that he believed that all other signery on the property is in conformance with the Sign Ordinance. The Secretary explained that the purpose of the variance is to bring most of the site into conformance with the Sign Ordinance. He explained that prior to the 1975 variance there were a number of freestanding signs that were nonconforming on the site. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the Ryan Oldsmobile building elevation and pointed out the three sign boards at the top of the building. He stated that he did not consider these to be wall signs since they all projected above the point where the vertical departs from the horizontal. He stated that under the ordinance these signs are roof signs and that they are all higher than is allowed by the Sign Ordinance. Regarding the reference to former Building Official Will Dahn, the Secretary acknowledged that a conversation had been held, but that no advice had been given to erect a sign without a permit. He stated that he did not feel the previous conversation, even though may have conveyed erroneous information, was relevant to the application. Mr. McCline again reiterated the conversation that he had had with Mr. Dahn. He stated that he had checked with the City prior to fabricating the sign and that the sign was made on the basis of erroneous information. He stressed that he had not intended to act outside the law. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Manson stated that she felt the three signs on the top of Bob Ryan Olds were roof signs and that the only logical choice was to reaffirm the previous variance decision (Application No. 75004). ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85007 (Sign Service, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 85007 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85008 (Ryan Construction Company) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a 4,000 sq. ft. drive -up facility in the office building under construction at Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive (6200 Shingle Creek Parkway). The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85008 attached). The Secretary 4-25-85 -2- construction for the project which totaled $20,590, including engineering and administrative costs. He explained the project is a safety improvement and a benefit to the entire City and therefore, the staff is recommending the total cost of the project be charged to the City's MSA fund. Councilmember Flawes expressed a concern that perhaps this type of structure may be requested in other areas of the City. The City Manager recommended to the Council that each project must be weighed on its own merits. The staff and Council continued to discuss the general traffic flow in the area and the proposed project. Mayor Nyquist noted that there were public hearings scheduled for 7:30 p.m. and that the Council would return to the street reconstruction projects later in the meeting, and requested the staff to begin the Planning Commission items. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85007 SUBMITTED BY SIGN SERVICE, INC. FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ERECT AN 6 ' BY 10' FREESTANDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN AT 700 BROO= BOULEVARD T-R—e City —pager pointed out the Planning Commission recommended denial of Application No. 85007 at its April 25, 1985 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Councilmembers pages one through two of the April 25, 1985 Planning Commission meeting minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 85007. He explained the applicant is Sign Service, Inc. and is seeking a variance for the Ryan Oldsmobile dealership on.Brooklyn Boulevard north of I-94. He explained the request is to erect an 8' x 10' freestanding identification sign at the Oldsmobile dealership at 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that there exists on the site three roof signs which exceed the height in area allowed by the sign ordinance. He pointed out these were allowed under a variance granted in 1975 which forbade any other freestanding signery on the site. He added the sign ordinance would normally allow two freestanding identification signs for this type of outdoor sales and display activity. At present, he pointed out Ryan Oldsmobile has one more roof sign than is permitted and all three roof signs are higher than the 23 16" allowed by ordinance. He explained that the current situation was acknowledged by a variance Application No. 75004 in lieu of all other freestanding identification signery on the site. In summary, he pointed out the variance was granted in 1975 with the condition that no other freestanding sign be permitted on the site. The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Councilmembers the applicant's letter requesting the sign variance. He explained the sign requested is legal under normal circumstances but not in consideration of the previous variance granted. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained that, after holding a public hearing on the application, the Planning Commission determined that there were no grounds for granting the variance. He pointed out there is a public hearing scheduled on the application this evening and that the proper notices had been sent to surrounding property owners and that the applicant is present this evening. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 85007. He recognized the applicant, Mr. C. L. McKline of Sign Service, Inc. who told the City Council that he was in a unique position with the sign already being 5-6-85 -5- installed. He explained that last fall Ryan Oldsmobile went into the leasing business, and wanted a sign to announce its rates and at that time he indicated he checked with Building Official Will Dahn, and was told that he could have such a sign. However, he pointed out when he made formal application for the sign permit he was denied. He again emphasized that Ryan Oldsmobile like many other car dealers is moving into the leasing area and believes it is important to get the right information on their daily and monthly rates for leasing. He also stated that he believes the sign panels on top of Ryan Oldsmobile's building are part of the wall and that the signs were therefore a wall sign. He asked that the Council consider the signs as wall signs and, therefore, allow the freestanding signs normally permitted. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Application No. 85007. In discussion of the application, Councilmember Theis inquired as to the procedure for variance request. The City Manager explained that the staff does a detailed check of applications when the formal application is submitted. He explained that the staff answers questions over the phone but does not go into detail unless an application is submitted. The Council continued to discuss and review the history of the sign variance granted to the Ryan Oldsmobile dealership formally Velie Oldsmobile, in 1975. Councilmember Hawes asked that, if the roof signs were removed, could the dealership install freestanding signs. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the freestanding signs would be permitted and the dealership would be entitled to two freestanding signs, one 250 sq. ft. and another 125 sq. ft. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to deny Application No. 85007 on the grounds that the standards for a variance are not met. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85008 SUBMITTED BY RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE A ,000 SQUARE FT. DRIVE -UP BANK FACILITY IN THE OFFICE BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION if SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE The City Manager pointed out the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85008 at its April 25, 1985 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Councilmembers pages two through four of the April 25 minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 85008. He explained the request is for a special use permit for a drive -up bank facility in the office building under construction on Shingle Creek and Summit Drive. He explained the building is phase II of the Brookdale Corporate Center. The Director of Planning & Inspection proceeded to review the parking requirements for the proposed project and also reviewed the traffic concerns raised by the application. He explained the four drive -up lanes are to be located on the east side of the building and bank customers would enter the site via an access slightly 5-6-85 -6-