Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC87027 - 12/17/87 - 6142 Brooklyn BlvdL PLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST FILE INFORMATION File Purge Date: Planning Commission Application Number: 16 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 z� City Vault Minutes: City Council / City Vault Document Type Number Location Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council City Vault Ordinances: City Council 88 "/'� City Vault CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION Application No. 87027 Street Location of Property Legal Description of Property Owner 11�M f7'` /V v Address Please Print Clearly or Type All e /O .� Phone Applicant�(//�@. Address A e Phone No. Type of Request: Rezoning ariance Subdivision Approval Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit Other: ,p Description of Request: 5 /'6-� f ), 7 e, V � * 'Aliy C. P� 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 herein. Withdrawal of the application shall not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal. Fee $ 4��15r Receipt No. 76362 Dates of P.C. Consideration: Date: T PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Approved Denied _X_ this Way of U jZ1 following conditions: 4 A rman -- - - - - - - CITY COUNCIL ACTION :0 cant's Signature ,subject to the Dates of Council Consideration: Z'"l�'��,c-c , Approved Denied_ this day of 19 O �� with the following amendment: Clerk P/I Form No. 18 (over please) 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 Rl 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 Is 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 Rl 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 Rl 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 Rl district in which the residence of the applicant is located. 12-17-87 -3- I � , 63 R D f! i f AV E. i i! i