Agenda Packets - 2006/07/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Clear Channel IUP & Variance Report July 24, 2006 Page 4 (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. The Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate or address the issue of billboards. As such, staff would suggest that the IUP request is not inconsistent with the Comp Plan. (7) The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. It is not anticipated that a billboard at the Mermaid site would not cause traffic hazards or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Access to the billboards will be gained via the Mermaid’s parking lot. Variance Appeal Consideration For a variance request or appeal to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. The Mounds View Planning Commission determined that, in their opinion, no hardship was evident to justify a variance. (The Commission’s resolution of denial is attached for the Council’s reference.) The Code states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: (1) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. Clear Channel is requesting a variance from the 35 foot height requirement to permit the billboard be constructed at a height of 45 feet. The basis for their request is to avoid visibility conflicts with the Mermaid’s ground sign and the Abbey Carpet building signage. In the eyes of the outdoor advertising industry, visibility is everything and the lack thereof presents a hardship. (2) The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would not, in and of itself, deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties. The ordinance was adopted after specific discussion concerning this very issue, in that the City Council expressed a desire to limit the height of billboards on County Road 10, differentiating it from those on US 10, 35W and Old Highway 8.