3. BASR 11-13-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case File:V 12-02 Cornerstone Sign Variance Page 3 2. The use of the property remains as highway business. The Comprehensive Plan does not speak to 41111 the signage patterns appropriate in a given district. 3. The petitioner must establish that practical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance. The petitioner makes two arguments. 1. The petitioner argues that each of the brands is its' own business. The petitioner equates "business" to "occupancy". 2. The petitioner argues that each of the 7 brands requires their own signage,and that he is forced to adopt their regulations. Both of these are dangerous slippery slope arguments. Argument 1. Signage is allowed based on the occupancy of the given use. The given use of the property, and its occupancy,is an auto-dealership and auto service. A second occupancy is the accessory car wash building. The four brands are not separate uses, they are all part of an auto dealership. In the same way a grocery store does not have separate signage for Kellogg's and Proctor and Gamble products, etc., or Ashley furniture has signage for Lay Z Boy and Broyhill and others, those business choose their signage based on the umbrella business (Cub,Ashley Furniture). Argument 2. Elk River,like many communities it's size, has a number of national and international chains and franchises,including Wal-Mart, Home Depot,Pizza Hut, Menards,Wells Fargo, Applebees, etc. Each of these businesses requires certain signage. None of these organizations have required its'local owner to obtain variances from the effective city code. If the City were to grant variances based on corporate requirements alone,which is the request of the petitioner, the city will be unable to establish its own criteria for appropriate and reasonable signage, effectively • eliminating the purpose and intent of the City Code (See #1 above). In staffs opinion, the petitioner has not satisfied practical difficulties argument. 4. The plight of the petitioner is not due to unique circumstances. The use of a large parcel for automotive sales is not unique in this district. The petitioner has failed to show that the variance is necessary due to a plight unique to the property. 5. The petitioner is burdened with proving that the essential character isn't altered. Staff has received no arguments to support this. It is staffs opinion that a variance will in fact alter the character of the neighborhood. The extreme level of increase of the wall signage negates the goal of innovation in design, and virtually encourages the sustained argument for more signage for all businesses that sell more than one brand. The highway business district specifically allows two wall signs; this ratio was reviewed as late as 2009. This regulation establishes the character of the district, and has been reviewed periodically, and such a deviation from the regulation could not help but to alter the character of the locality. ATTACHMENTS • See Conditional Use Permit and Plat of Jabez Staff Reports dated November 13, 2012 Action Motion by Second by Vote 11111 N:\Departments\Community Development\Planning\Case Files\Variance\V 12-02 Cornerstone Auto\Request for Action.docx