2000 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

�� _ � ! ._ �__�-- .� �__ - � Sysco Variance April 19, 2000 Page 2 of 3 ; __ _ _ _ ..:_� k ._ _ �.. �.- . --::.- _ __..i - . � -.. The Planning Commission discussed this request at its meeting on April 5, 2000 and felt that there was su�cient basis for a hardship in this situation and directed staffto draft a resolution for action at its meeting on April 19`l, 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 these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary ci�°cunlstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result fram lot size or shape, topography or other circunzstances over which the owners of the prope�°ty since the effective date hereof have had no contf�ol. Sysco Foods, a thriving national food service and dry goods distributor, is utilizing its property to nearly full capacity. The part of the property alongside Highway 10 serves as a parking area and circulatory system for the trucks that service the business. The parking lot itself and the trucks that utilize it presents an extraordinary circumstance and practical difficulty relative to the siting of the proposed billboards. b. The liter•al interpretation of the provisions of thrs Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under 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. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result, fi°oni the actions 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 prior to the Sysco development, the site plan could have been conf°igured in such as way to allow for the location of two billboards in compliance with the provisions of Section 1008.08.