2000 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

, ; _ �. _ � _ _ _ ;; _ _ ��_�_ �_ _ — ..__�_�s ��----= --�-- --- ---- �� -- - ----- -- _ -- - — --- -- --- —_= -- . ,_ - -. I Sysco Variancc April 5, 2000 Pagc 2 of 3 A public hearing had been set for this date yet the notice was not published in the paper as intended due to an error by the Foca�s Newspaper, thus no action can be taken on this item. The hearing notice will be republished and notification mailed to property owners within 350 feet, for a public hearing with the Planning Commission on April l9, 2000. Analysis: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with theseThe Code clearly states that athardship exists when alol2of the Subdivision 2, of the Ctty Code. criteria are met. Tile individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: 0 Exceptional or extraordinary circumstartces apply to the propef•ty which do not a��ply gener•ally to other �roper�ties i�z 1he same zone or vicinity arid r•esult from lot size or shape, topography vr �lher circz�mstarrces over which the ow��ers of the pro��erty since the effective date hereof hcrve had no control. Sysco Foods, a thriving national food service and dry goods distributor, is utilizing its property to nearly full capacity. The part of the k�phat servn est e bus ness. 1 Theves as a parking area and circulatory system for the tru parking lot itself and the trucks that utilize it presents an extraordinary circumstance and practical difficulty relative to the siting of the proposed billboards. The literal interpr�etation of the p��oi�isions vf this 7itle wvrild dep�•ive the applicar7t of r•ights conmzorily enjoyed by other propei'ties in Jhe same district uf�der• the terms of this Title. While the literal interpretation of the provisions of Section 1008.08 would not deprive the applicant the ability to install one billboard, the strict interpretation of the provision would prevent the installation of a second billboard in the location sought by the applicant. It would appear that two billboards would fit on the property while maintaining the required 1,000 foot setback, but the resulting siting locations would be unacceptable due to interference with truck traffic and also due to sight-line considerations. Thus, a deprivation to the property owner does exist. That the special conditions oi� cir•cz+mstattces do not result fi-om the actioras of the applicant. The applicant was not involved in the drafting of the ordinance which conditionally allows the installation of billboards on properties north of State Highway 10. Its business and the associated site development and improvements had occurred long before the contemplation of such an ordinance. Had the ordinance been in effect prinr to the Sysco development, the site plan could have been configured in such as way to allow for the location of two billboards in compliance with the provisions of Section 1008.08.