HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC79042 - 7/12/79 - 4500-4710 58th AvePLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST
File Purge Date:
FILE INFORMATION
Planning Commission Application Number: — 904
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
Agendas: Planning Commission Office
Minutes: Planning Commission --A \\ 01\ -1G City Vault
Minutes: City Council —I' '� 3 pC-1 City Vault
Document Type Number Location
Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault
Resolutions: City Council City Vault
Ordinances: City Council City Vault
1
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING APPLICATION
Application No. 790 �- v-- _
Please Print Clearly or Type
Street Location of Property 4500 - 4710 58th Avenue North
Legal Description of Property Lot 1 Block 1 Twin Lake Addition
Property Identification # 03-118-21 22 0025
Owner Twin Lake North Company
Address 7900 Xerxes Avenue South #920, Bloomington, MN Phone No.
---- 554-31
Applicant Twin Lake North Company and Gittleman Corporation
Address 7900 Xerxes Avenue South #920, Bloomington, MN Phone No. 831-2505
------- 5S --
Type of Request: Rezoning Subdivision Approval
x variance (sign) Site & Bldg. Plan Approval
Special Use Permit Other:
Description of Request: To allow two identification signs at main entrance for a total
of 36 square feet rather than one 36 square sign as allowed by ordinance. Applicant
waives right to erect any additional signage at second entrance to development as allowable
by ordinance.
Fee $ 15.00
Receipt No. -5/ / (a /
Dates of P.C. Consideration:
Approved
i ng cond-' ti i ons :
Twin La orth Company Gittl a Corporatior
ByB
�le v n OP ° s Si gnat l v nn Gi ttl ema
artner Press ent
June 27, 1979
Date
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Denied this 1_ day of 19 11, subject to the follow-
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Dates of Council Consideration:
Ll
rman
Approved Denied this 3 day of 19 '7< with the following
amendment:
Clerk
P/I Form No. 18 (over please)
PlanAing Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79042
Applicant: Gittleman Corporation
Location: 4500 - 4710 - 58th Avenue North
Request: Variance from Sign Ordinance
The applicant requests a variance from Section 34-140, 3C (3) of the Sign
Ordinance which allows only one freestanding identification sign not to exceed
36 square feet at each major entrance. The applicant desires to place two
identification signs totaling 36 square feet in area at a single common entrance
to the Twin Lake North Apartments and the Twin Lake North Condominiums.
The applicant -argues in a letter of application (attached) that the ordinance
requirements for a variance from the Sign Ordinance are met because:
1. The driveway extending into both developments creates a
hardship because it is divided generally by the municipal
boundary of Brooklyn Center and Crystal, and the topography
is poor on the Crystal side of the entrance.
2. The situation is unique in that the main entrance serves
two separate developments, one in Brooklyn Center and one in
Crystal.
3. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property because the total area of
the signs is within the maximum allowed by the Ordinance.
The Commission is referred to Section 34-180 containing the Standards for Variances
from the Sign Ordinance (attached). It is not felt that the proposal meets the
requirements listed therein. A consistent reading of the Sign Ordinance requires
that only one freestanding identification sign be allowed per major entrance to
a clustered establishment. No matter how many business or other uses share a
common entrance, only one freestanding sign is allowed for identification purposes
at each entrance. The applicant's situation, therefore, does not seem unique.
A hardship is not demonstrated in this case apart from the applicant's aesthetic
judgment which is considered too subjective a basis for determining hardship.
The applicant will not suffer a particular hardship under a literal reading
of the ordinance since he will still be entitled to one 36 square foot free-
standing sign, as would be allowed in any similar circumstance.
The variance, if granted, would not greatly improve the visibility of the
complex, but could pose a safety hazard by possibly construing the common
entrance as two separate entrances, divided by the median. The proposal, there-
fore, seems at least potentially detrimental to the public welfare inasmuchas
it creates a potential traffic hazard.
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the variance be denied because
it does not meet the standards for a variance in the Sign Ordinance.
7-12-79
�f
oo
i5oc"5 La ke, F,-\Cacj