Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 12-17 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87028 Applicant: Mary Korzenowski Location: 4800 N. Lilac Drive Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant seeks preliminary R.L.S. approval to resubdivide into three tracts the old Cook Paint site, the site of Omni Tool to the east, and two small vacant tracts in between. The land in question is zoned I-2 and is bounded on the north by Thompson Lumber, on the east by Bergmann Machine Works, on the south by 48th Avenue North, and on the west by Highway 100. The subdivision is intended to transfer a portion of the old Cook Paint property to Omni Tool for potential future expansion. The preliminary R.L.S. includes three tracts, A, B, and C. Tract A is .39 acres and consists of the North Lilac Drive right-of-way on the west edge of the R.L.S. It is being expanded in width by 5' to allow more boulevard space. At the intersection with 48th Avenue North, it is expanded 20' east to take in all of the paved area and a public catch basin in North Lilac Drive. Tract B is 3.38 acres and contains the existing Cook Paint building (now owned by K and K Sales) . The existing building is nonconforming as to setback from North Lilace Drive. It is only 5.44' from the proposed right-of-way line at its closest point. A proof-of-parking plan has been submitted with a total of 75 existing and 28 potential stalls, enough to meet the parking requirement of the building with its present breakdown of 10,469 sq. ft. office and 30,016 sq. ft. warehouse/manufacturing (90 spaces are required) . A parking lot has recently been installed north of the building and does not meet the 15' greenstrip requirement entirely. Providing the full 15' greenstrip requirement entirely. Providing the full 15' greenstrip will result in the loss of one or two parking stalls. The correction should be accomplished next spring. Also, 27 of the existing stalls are directly off 48th Avenue North and do not meet greenstrip requirements at all. These may remain, but would have to be replaced by stalls on the east side of the site if a building expansion were proposed. Tract C of the proposed R.L.S. is 1.46 acres and contains the existing Omni Tool building on the easterly portion of the tract. It also contains the two small vacant tracts which are each 20' wide and run diagonally from 48th Avenue North up to the Thompson Lumber property. A roadway easement exists over these two small tracts (Tracts D and E of R.L.S. 546) in favor of all owners of land in R.L.S. 4546. This includes basically all the industrial land south of the Soo Line tracks and east of Highway 100 and of France Avenue North. The only properties actually abutting these two tracts are Omni Tool, which would own them, and Thompson Lumber to the north. Nevertheless, the existence of the roadway easement is so prejudicial to the potential use of the property that staff recommend that the application be tabled until the applicant submits a title opinion asserting that the easement no longer exists or until all of the interested property owners have released their interest in the easement. A drainage and utility easement should still be retained, however. Incidentally, there is a proposed 10' wide drainage and utility easement along the south edge of the proposed R.L.S. adjacent to 48th Avenue North in accordance with staff recommendation. In conclusion, the preliminary R.L.S. cannot be acted on as long as the existing roadway easement essentially divides the proposed Tract C into two parcels. The westerly parcel that results would have a 40' frontage. This is far less that the 100' required by the Zoning Ordinance. The westerly parcel would essentially be unbuildable by itself. The owner of Omni Tool only intends to use the area for parking to support an addition to his building, but the area becomes practically a separate parcel if the roadway easement is enforced. We, therefore, recommend tabling the application until the question of the roadway easement is resolved. 12-17-87 1 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87027 Applicant: Dr. John Lescault Location: 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow a 32 sq. ft. freestanding home occupation sign at his residence at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by 62nd Avenue North, on the east and south by single-family homes, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. Dr. Lescault possesses a special use permit for the chiropractor's office he conducts in his home. Home occupation signs are limited under the Sign Ordinance to 2.5 sq. ft. Dr. Lescault presently has a small illuminated sign for his business on Brooklyn Boulevard. Applicant's Arguments Dr. Lescault has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the standards for a sign variance (see Section 34-180 also attached) . Regarding the standard relating to hardship, Dr. Lescault states that it is his impression that a hardship does exist because, even with his new sign, patients continue to park in the dental building to the south or at Bridgeman's across the street because they do not see the sign. In his second point, Dr. Lescault states that he is located in a transitional area that "is not an Rl." He states that usage of the larger sign would be appropriate inasmuchas he is located adjacent to a number of commercial properties. He states that LeRoy Sign Company has indicated to him that for a 40 m.p.h. road, 5" to 6" letters and a sign approximately 4' x 8' or 4' x 7' would be appropriate. In his third point, Dr. Lescault states that he does not see that a sign would affect the value of adjacent property or the neighborhood as a whole. Dr. Lescault concludes his letter by stating that there is justification in the variance request because his clients still have trouble finding him after 11 years of being in business at this location. He states that drivers slowing down to look for the office create a traffic hazard. He also states that he has even had patients attempt to park on Brooklyn Boulevard to enter the office. Variance Standards The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the specific property or use under consideration. The provisions of the Sign 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 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 thereof within the same zoning classification; 12-17-87 -1- Application No. 87027 continued 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. Staff Analysis Regarding hardship, the confusion of potential customers has been justification for a variance in the cases of Iten Chevrolet and the old Holiday Inn. These variances were for the height of signs near major freeway interchanges. It should be noted that these variances were granted in the early 1970's, one (the Iten Chevrolet variance) prior to the adoption of the current Sign Ordinance. These variances are not considered to be precedents in this case primarily due to more recent actions on the part of the City Council to deny sign variance requests involving Duke's Standard in 1982 and Russell Viska for the Smoke House Restaurant in 1981. In both of these applications the applicants cited the difficulty potential customers have in finding their establishments and both wanted higher signs to be seen from major thoroughfares. Both applications were denied. Also, in 1982 Universal Sign Company sought a variance for the height of the Budgetel sign. That application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on two different occasions and it appeared that the Planning Commission would recommend denial of the application. It was later withdrawn and not pursued. One thing we are skeptical of is the need for a 4' x 8' sign when the letters only need to be 5" to 6" high. Some of the letters in Dr. Lescault's sign are already almost 5" high (4 3/4" for the word Chiropractor) . Other letters are 3" high (for the words: Dr. John B. Lescault) . It is probably not possible to get the same message into the existing sign with 6" high letters. The sign is 1' x 3' and, therefore, exceeds the ordinance maximum of 2.5 sq. ft. It is our estimate, though we have not designed such a sign, that a smaller sign, more square in shape could accommodate 5" or 6" letters. As to uniqueness, Dr. Lescault's business is not unique on Brooklyn Boulevard. There have been at least eight home occupations located on Brooklyn Boulevard and all have lived within the limits of the Sign Ordinance. Dr. Lescault's office perhaps generates more customer traffic than some of the other home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard and so, if there is a problem with identification signery, it may indeed affect more people. Nevertheless, all home businesses would no doubt like greater exposure and if a variance is granted in this case, the likelihood of additional variances to other home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard is great, because Dr. Lescault's situation does not appear to be unique. Staff conducted a survey of 17 municipalities regarding their ordinances governing home occupation signs. Ten of the 17 do not permit any signery at all. One community allows a 1 sq. ft. sign; four allow 2 sq. ft. signs; one allows a 4 sq. ft. sign; and one allows a 6 sq. ft. sign. None allow larger signs if the business is located on a major thoroughfare. It, therefore, appears that Brooklyn Center is already more lenient than most cities in regards to home occupation signs. Because of the existence of other home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard, we would recommend an ordinance change before a variance. However, in light of the survey results, we cannot recommend an ordinance change either. 12-17-87 -2- Application No. 87027 continued Finally, as to detriment to the public welfare or injury to other property in the neighborhood, staff would acknowledge that such a sign would not be injurious to the businesses in the neighborhood. But, we do feel that such a sign is inappropriate for the R1 district which includes this property. Dr. Lescault argues that his property is "certainly considered a transitional area and is not an R1." This may be true in a practical sense, but the legal fact is that this property is zoned Rl, that it is a residence, and that the business conducted is a home occupation. As such it is subject to greater restrictions than if it were an office use in a commercial district. We believe the proposed sign is out of character with the Rl district and with home occupations generally. In that sense it is a detriment to the public welfare. It should also be pointed out that Dr. Lescault had previously sought a similar variance under Planning Commission Application No. 84025 in July and August of 1984. His arguments then are very similar to those being made today. The City Council denied that 1984 application on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance had not been met. Dr. Lescault's zoning status is that of a special home occupation in an R1 zoning district. As such, the home occupation is to be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the property. Home occupations are not afforded all the rights and privileges of commercial uses in commercial zoning districts. The City has determined that a maximum 2.5 sq. ft. signs are appropriate in residential zoning districts for home occupations, whether they are permitted home occupations or special home occupations. Any changes should be made in the form of an ordinance amendment not through the granting of a variance. Recommendation Based on the foregoing analysis, it is recommended that the proposed variance be denied on the grounds that the applicant has not demonstrated that the Standards for a Variance have been met particularily in the following ways: 1. The hardship cited by the applicant is not unusual for a home occupation located on a major thoroughfare. 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are not unique inasmuchas there have been at least eight home occupations along Brooklyn Boulevard which have lived within the restrictions of the Sign Ordinance. 3. A large (4' x 81 ) home occupation sign would be detrimental to the integrity of the R1 district in which the residence of the applicant is located. 12-17-87 -3- 1 1