Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 05-22 PCP t � PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STUDY SESSION May 22, 1980 1 . Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. ' 2. Roll Call • 3. Approval of Minutes: May 8, 1980 4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council . The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation 80015 Request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance Section 34:14, 2 1 (3) to erect a -36-square foot promotional sign to advertise the sale of condominiums at the Beach Condominium complex. 6. . 1981-1985 Capital Improvements Program Staff will be prepared to discuss additional elements of the draft Capital Improvements Program with the Planning Commission. It is recommended that the Planning Commission take action on this element of the Comprehensive Plan at this meeting. 7. Other Business 8. Discussion Item a) Draft language for Ordinance amendments relating to joint parking and off-site accessory parking. 9. Adjournment 5 Manning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 80015 Applicant: Darrel A. Farr Development Corporation Location: 4201-4207 Lakeside Avenue North (The Beach Condominiums) Request: . Sign Ordinance Variance The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 34-140, Subdivision 2, 1 (3) (copy attached) of the Sign Ordinance to erect a 48 sq. ft. freestanding sign at The Beach Condominiums that would read "Condominium Models Open". The purpose of the sign would be for selling dwelling units in that building. Variances from the Sign Ordinance requirements are authorized by Section 34-180 (copy attached) and the procedure is the same as that of a Zoning Ordinance Variance. The Ordinance states that variances from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance may be granted in instances where the strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the specific property or use under consideration. The provisions of this ordinance, considered in conjunction 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 predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. Variances may be granted only after demonstration by evidence that all of the following three 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 thereof within the same zoning classification; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. ` The applicant has submitted two letters dated April 7, 1980 and April 18, 1980 in which they indicate the nature of the request and how they meet the Sign Ordinance Standards for Variances. They apparently are convinced that they need additional signery to assist in the marketing of the condominium units. Although they note (correctly) that a hardship is not typically defined as an economic hardship, they feel that economics do have relevance with respect to their meeting the qualifications of the ordinance. They state that a delay in marketing the units not only causes them additional costs in high interest rates, but also, causes higher prices which are passed on, thus creating a hardship for both perspective buyers as well as themselves. The applicant's letter notes that The Beach Condominium conversion project is the only such project in Brooklyn Center and, therefore, it is a unique situation. 5-8-80 -1- ' Application No. 80015 They also state that the variance will not -be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property, but rather to the contrary the speedy completion of the sale of the units will be of benefit to the community and neighborhood for the following three reasons: First, it would cause the physical improvements to the property and the traffic associated with the construction and renovation to be condensed in a shorter time span. Second, it would provide a completed product to the people who have already purchased and are living in some inconvenience due to the lengthy marketing time and the disruptions inherent in the construction and rehabiliation activity. Third, it would more rapidly increase the valuation of the property for property tax assessment purposes. The Planning Commission should consider a number of factors when evaluating whether or not the proposal meets the Variance Standards: 1 . An economic hardship in, and of itself, cannot be sufficient justification for granting a variance. The provisions of the ordinance when considered with the unique and distinctive circumstances related to the property must be the cause of the hardship. The Commission and the City Council typically have looked at factors other than economics when determining a hardship such as does the strict interpretation of the ordinance deny the applicant something that he might normally be entitled to under the ordinance. It should be pointed out that the applicant is entitled to, and takes advantage of, other signery under the provisions of the ordinance for identification and directional purposes, The Beach Condo- minium complex can have, for instance, one 36 sq. ft. free- standing identification sign, plus one 10 sq. ft. wall identification sign per building and other necessary directional signs._ Furthermore, the ordinance, although restrictive, does allow an additional 5 sq. ft. wall sign for the purpose of selling dwelling units. 2. It is hard to believe that the amount of signs, or the lack thereof, really creates a marketing hardship, rather than only an inconvenience. There are other marketing approaches and advertising means available to the applicant that could perhaps have even a greater effect on the marketability of the units than would an additional sign. At the time the applicant proposed the condominium complex in August and September of 1979, they indicated that they did not expect to completely sell out the complex for approximately two years. According to their April 7, 1980 letter, they have already sold 71 of 122 units (approximately 60%). It does not appear that the lack of additional signery is necessarily slowing down the conversion process and it could not be considered that the Sign Ordinance is creating a hardship which is putting them behind schedule in the conversion process. 5-8-80 -2- J Application No. 80015 3. The Beach Condominium may be the first condominium conversion in Brooklyn Center, but it cannot be considered "unique". It is felt that other apartment complexes in the future may convert as well . A variance in this case would set a precedent for granting similar variances on signs for other conversion . complexes. The section of the Sign Ordinance for which the variance is being requested also deals with the leasing of dwelling units within buildings containing two or more units. If this variance were granted, it might be argued successfully that any other apartment complex in a similar zoning district should also be entitled to additional freestanding signery to lease out vacant dwelling units in their building. If any action is taken at all , it would be adviseable to modify the ordinance, rather than deal with the matter through the variance procedure. 4. . If it is felt that the additional signery would speed up the marketability of the project and this is a necessary benefit to the community, then perhaps the applicant's contention regarding the nondetrimental effect on the community and the neighborhood might be accepted. Some people very well might consider additional signs to be a source of visual pollution which is detrimental to the community. As indicated above, it can realistically be anticipated that other requests for additional signery for similar purposes will be sought and the granting of these requests may not be to the community's or the neighborhood's advantage. Finally, it must be pointed out that the Sign Ordinance was designed as a restrictive ordinance to provide, as the ordinance statement of purpose indicates, "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 regulating the type, number, structure, size, location, height, lighting and the erection and maintenance of all outdoor signs and sign structures within the City." This factor might also be considered relevant o the Commission's consideration. The key word in the state- ment of purpose seem to be "necessary visual communication." The question is really whether or not this is necessary visual communication. Based on the information supplied, it is not felt that the Standards for a Sign Ordinance are met and, therefore, denial of the application is recommended. 5-8-80 -3- • • I • DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Section 35-720 is hereby amended to read as follows (first paragraph as is) . -With respect to (nondevelopment complexes J, separate individual establishments, the City Council may approve the joint use of common parking facilities under the following condition: 1. The building or use for which application is made to utilize the off-street• parking facilities provided by another building or use shall be located within 800 feet of such parking facilities; and shall not be separated by a building or use with which it does not share parking facilities in the manner prescribed by this Ordinance. In no case will joint parking facilities be located across those streets listed in Section 35-701:3F. 2. The applicant shall show and the City Council must determine that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating hours and parking demands of the two buildings or uses comtemplating joint use of off-street parking facilities. 3. A properly drawn legal instrument providing for joint use of off-street parking facilities, duly approved by the City Council as to form and manner of execution shall be filed as an easement encumbrance upon the title of the property. Section 35-701:3 is hereby amended to yeas as follows: 3. Ordinance required parking spaces accessory to uses lo- cated in a business or industrial district shall be on the same lot as the uses served unless a special use permit authorizes [supplemental] accessory off-site parking not located on the same property with the principal use. Special use permits authorizing such parking may be issued subject to the following conditions: (a) Special use permits may be issued only for business or industrial uses which have been con- ' tinuously operational on a specific site for at least two years. . (b) Accessory off-site parking shall be permitted only on properties located in districts zoned commercial (Cl, C1A, C2) and industrial (I1, I2) , and on properties which are institutional uses in residential zones, and having the same or less restrictive zoning classification as the principal j ^^� use. For the purposes of this Section of the 44 Ordinance, institutional uses in residential zones shall have the same status as Cl zoned property. (c) -- Accessory off-site parking shall be limited to one site per each business or industrial use issued a special use permit. (d) The .distance from the furthest point of the accessory off-site parking property to the site of the principal use shall not exceed (300) 800 feet. (e) A minimum of 20 parking spaces must be provided on the off-site parking property. (f) Accessory off-site parking shall be located such that pedestrian traffic will not be required to cross the following roadways to reach the principal use: (1) Major thoroughfares as defined in Section r 35-900; (2) 55th and 56th Avenues North between Xerxes Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard; (3) Summit Drive; (4) 66th Avenue North between Lyndale Avenue North and Camden Avenue North. (g) Accessory off-site parking spaces may be credited to the parking requirements ofthe principal use if the off-site parking property is legally encumbered to the sole purpose of providing parking accessory to the principal use. (h) Accessory off-site parking site improvements shall be provided as required by the City Council. Section 35-900 is hereby amended to include the following: Parking, Accessory Off-site - A legal arrangement in which parking spaces, located on a property other than that of the principal use to which they are accessory, are encumbered solely for use by the off-site principal use. Such spaces may be credited to the o4dinance parking requirements of the principal use by special use permit if the requirements of Section 35-701 are met. Parking, Joint - An easement agreement over certain property which gives a use located on a nearby or adjacent property the right to make use of parking stalls within the easement area. Such agree- ments are for the convenience of .the respective uses which share the same parking stalls at different times and cannot be used to meet proof-of-parking requirements for the off-site use. (See accessory off-site parking which provides for meeting proof-of parking re- quirements off-site. ) �. , '; \�. s