2001 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

�� ; :7� i , i , , Item # 5 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: September 19, 2001 Title: DISCUSSI4N REGA.RDING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST BY CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR TQ EXPAND THE EXISTING BILLBOARD LOCATED 4N CITY-OWNED PROPERTY; PLANNING CASE DE01-004 Introduction: This request was first heard before the PIanning Commission on September 5, 2001. The applicant, in response to a request from the Planning Commission at that meeting, has submitted colored renditions of the proposal (both overhead and side perspective) which should provide a better visual image of the proposal, For the most part, the information presented in this report remains unchanged from the report given to the Planning Commission on September 5, 2001. Introduetion: Chris McCarver, representing Clear Channel Outdoor, owner of the billboard located on city-owned land on the north side of County Highway 10, is requesting approval of a development review to pernut an expansion of the billboard from 300 square feet to 672 square feet. Clear Channel owns a permanent lease for the 40-square feet upon which the sign is located. To expand the sign, an additional easement or lease area may need to be negotiated. It would be the City's position that even if additional easement area from the City is not needed for the expansion, that the applicant would be required to enter into an agreement with the City pertaining to the expansion of the billboard. The property is the former Midland Videen land that the City acquired through its land swap with TOLD Company. The property on which the sign is located is zoned PF, Public Facilities. Diseussion: According to the City's recently adopted Sign Code, the billboard is a legal, nonconforming sign. Section 1008.13, Subd. 1 of the Code states the following: "Structural alterations, erilargement or re-erection are permissible only where such alterations would not increase the degree of the noncanformity of the sign." City sta�F, supported in opinion by the City Attorney, interprets this to indicate that the sign can be enlarged because the degree of nonconformity remains unchanged with an expansion. The nonconfornvty is based not on the size of the sign or its setback, but rather its location. It is nonconforming QNLY because it is not located north of new Highway 10. The zoning is proper and the size would be in compIiance. (Billboards are only permitted in a PF or PUD zoning district, up to 700 square feet.)