Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC81072 -11/19/81 - 5001 Drew Ave. NPLANNING CO1 D41SSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: — FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application No. 8/y7'2 PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: C-2 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 Minutes: City Council Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions: City Council Ordinances: City Council /�/i9�8, City Vault �z/-7jg, City Vault City Vault City Vault City Vault Historical Photographs: Planning Commission City Archieve CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION Application No. 81072 Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property 5001 Drew Ave. N. Legal Description of Property Section 10 Owner R & F Apartments Address 5182 W. Broadway _ Phone No. 535-4502 Applicant Russell G. Viska Address 5001 Drew Ave. N. Phone No. 535-4502 Type of Request: Rezoning X Variance 6 Special Use Permit Description of Request: Subdivision Approval Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Other: Variance from Chapter 34 to allow increase in sign height from 24' to 34' and sq. ft. to 134 sq.ft. 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 hE�rein. Withdrawal of the application shall not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal. Fee $tin_nn Hppiicant's Signature Receipt No. 57084 Date: 11-5-81 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration: Approved Denied this c:-t 'owing conditions: Dates of Council Consideration: day of19 subject to the CITY COUNCIL ACTION man Approved Denied this day of19 Vi with the following amendment: Clerk P/I Form No. 18 (over please) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 55430 PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING APPLICATION FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL Prior to submission of an application for plan review and approval, prospective applicants should arrange an informational meeting with the Planning Staff to discuss preliminary plans and to become familiarized with applicable ordinance and policy provisions. Three (3) copies of the.follcowing documents and information shall be submitted, at least 14 days prior to the date of the regular -Commission meeting, concurrent with filing the application (required documents must be consistent with ordi- nance and policy provisions before an application may be accepted): 1. A certified site survey drawing by a registered engineer or land surveyor showing pertinent existing condition, accurately dimensioned. 2.* An accurately scaled and dimensioned site plan indicating: a) parking layouts including access provisions; b) designations and locations of accessory buildings; c) fences, walls or other screening, including heights and type of material; d) outside lighting provisions, type and location; e) curbing. 3.* A landscape plan showing areas to be sodded or seeded; location, size and species of trees and shrubbery. 4.* Building floor plans, elevations, sections and specifications, including materials proposed. 5.* Existing and proposed land elevations, drainage provisions, and utility provisions. 6. Additional drawings, plans or information deemed necessary by the Secretary. *Must be prepared by a registered architect or person registered with the State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors, and said drawings/plans shall be so certified. NOTE: Upon approval of plans by the Council and prior to issuance of permits, a Performance Agreement as to approved site improvements and a supporting finan- cial guarantee, in an amount to be determined by the City, are required. Accept- able financial instruments include cash escrow; certificate of deposit; and performance bond. Copies of the Zoning Ordinance may be obtained from the Administrative Office. Questions should be directed to the Planning and Inspection Department. P/I Form No. 19 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81072 Applicant: Russell Viska Location: 5001 Drew Ave. N. (Smoke Pit) Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow a freestanding sign 34' in height and 134 sq. ft. in total area which exceeds the maximum of 24' in height and 90 sq. ft. in area permitted under the ordinance. The proposed sign would be an ex- pansion of a sign presently located at the southeast corner of the property at 5001 Drew Ave. N. The lot in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by a single family residence to the north, an R4 zoned lot to the west, industrial uses across 50th Ave. N. to the south, and Brookdale Ten Apartments across Drew Ave. N. to the east. The property is located just west of the 50th Ave. N. access to Highway 100. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached)with his application in which he explains,why he feels a taller and larger sign is necessary for his business. The Highway 100 right-of-way is lined intermittently will tall evergreen trees which block out the view of the existing sign from southbound motorists. The sign could be seen more readily if it were moved to the roof of the building or to a different location on the lot. However, the applicant has been advised by a police officer that the sign would then be too far from the roadway and drivers would turn their heads to see the sign, causing a traffic hazard. Mr. Viska, therefore, measured the sight lines that exceed the height of the trees. The highest tree blocks out sight up to 28h' above ground. Mr. Viska accordingly wishes to erect a 5' square sign above the existing sign (see copy of drawing attached) so that the upper sign is situated between 29' and 34' above ground. The Sign Ordinance calculates sign area for such a sign as the area of the polygon surrounding all sign area with no interior angle ex- ceeding 1800. Based on this method calculation, the proposed sign would have a total area of 152 sq. ft. (the areas reported in the letter and the method reflected in the drawing are incorrect). This includes 73 sq. ft. of actual sign face (or 88 sq. ft. if a third sign is added between the existing sign and the proposed 5' x 5' sign at the top). The maximum area permitted under the Sign Ordi- nance for a building the size of the restaurant is 90 sq. ft. The applicant could reduce the total sign area by raising the existing sign. However, he intends to use it as a reader board and, there- fore, prefers to leave it at a height from which it can be read by those entering the premises. Mr. Viska points out that the sign will still be blocked out by the railroad bridge for northbound traffic on Highway 100. He also suggests that a more visible sign may benefit the industrial uses south of 50th Avenue North by providing easier identification of the 50th Avenue North turnoff. Under the Sign Ordinance, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal 11-19-81 -1- 'Application No. 81072 continued provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict en- forcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the specific property or use under con- sideration. The provisions of this ordinance, considered in con- junction with the unique and distinctive circumstances related to the property or uses thereof must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumstances caused by the property owner or the applicant or a predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 1. A particular hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out; 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land or the use thereof for which the variance is sought and are not common, generally to other property or uses within the same zoning classification; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission should be aware that sign variances to allow visibility to freeways have been granted in the past (Iten Chevrolet, Bob Ryan Olds, and Holiday Inn, for instances). A variance was granted under Application No. 65018 on May 24, 1965 to allow a 50 ft. freestanding identification sign at Iten Chevrolet. A variance was granted to the Holiday Inn under Application No. 71050, though City Council Resolution No. 72-11 (copy attached) on January 31, 1972 for a freestanding sign not to exceed 60 ft. in height. A variance was also granted to Bob Ryan Olds.under Appli- cation No. 75004 on May 5, 1975 for a roof sign that exceeded the height restrictions of the Sign Ordinance. These applications all involved, to some extent, freeway visibility. The Iten Chevrolet variance involved old ordinance requirements and preceded the current Sign Ordinance, but the question of visibility because of the freeway overpass at Brooklyn Boulevard was an issue. The 1975 variance for Ryan Olds,allowed that business to continue the use of the roof sign on the new car building that had advertised Velie Olds. The Holiday Inn variance was granted following extensive documental engineering studies and a finding that all qualifications for grant- ing a variance were met. The resolution notes that patrons of the motel are mainly itinerant out-of-town motorists, unfamiliar with the area; that patronage of the motel will be primarily in the evening; identification of and access to the motel merits special consideration given the volume of traffic and the danger of rapid lane changes on the freeway; and the location of the motel and the topography of the area presents certain problems relative to the use of the freestanding sign to identify the motel. 11-19-81 -2- Application No. 81072 continued it is felt that the Iten Chevrolet and Ryan Olds variances are not precedents that relate to this application and it is difficult to relate all of the points of the Holiday Inn variance to the application in question. Mr. Viska's business is not primarily out-of-town motorists who are unfamiliar with the area. The access to his business is not the same as the interchange that existed at Humboldt Avenue and the freeway, when the Holiday Inn variance was granted. There is limited access, only for southbound Highway 100 at 50th Avenue North. The question which must be answered in this and other cases is whether it is possible, within the restrictions of the Sign Ordi- nance, to achieve "necessary visual communication." There is a substantial gap between the rows of evergreen trees which allows for full visibility of the restaurant to southbound drivers on Highway 100. The freestanding sign in place is not visible through the gap, however. Hence, the request to raise tEe freestanding sign above the trees. Possibly an illuminated wall sign or roof sign (which would be in lieu of the existing freestanding sign) would provide comparable visibility and also stay within the limits established by the Sign Ordinance. It is staff's judgment that much of the difficulty in making a restaurant go at the location of 50th and Drew is related to the surrounding uses (none of which are commercial), the type of high- way access (limited) in addition to barriers to visibility presented by the railroad bridge and the evergreen trees. The proposed sign would overcome the barrier of the evergreen trees'(until they grow taller), but would do nothing to overcome other disadvantages. It must be admitted that the property may be improperly zoned, given its size and location. The hardship which this business faces is real and considerable, but it will not likely be eliminated by the erection of a sign more than three storeys high. As to whether a wall or roof sign would cause a traffic hazard by requiring people to look further away from the road, the police department reports that it has no objective criteria by which to judge the impact of various signs on traffic safety. The opinion which Mr. Viska ascribes to a local police officer is, therefore, only an opinion, not a judgment based on a traffic safety code. A contrary opinion relating to traffic safety might well be that any visible distraction is an impairment to traffic safety, and should be lessened or eliminated. In conclusion, staff feel the standards for a sign variance are not clearly met. The hardship the business is experiencing is not en- tirely related to signery and signs may be erected to improve visi- bility which do not violate the ordinance. The conditions upon which the variance request is based are somewhat unique, but apply to other properties in that general neighborhood as well. While these conditions were not created by the applicant or a previous owner, adherence to the ordinance would still allow for necessary visual communication. Finally, the impact on the general public and on surrounding properties of a 34' high, 152 sq. ft. sign is con- sidered by staff to be more negative than positive. Accordingly, we recommend that the requested variance be denied. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 11-19-81 -3-