Agenda Packets - 2006/07/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Clear Channel IUP & Variance Report July 24, 2006 Page 5 (3) That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant only desires to preserve visibility to the existing ground and building signage while at the same time eliminate any visibility conflicts with the billboard. (4) That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. By virtue of the applicant’s leases at the former golf course site and the agreement with the City to relocate four of these billboards elsewhere in the City, the applicant would assert that the situation is already quite unique and thus a variance would not confer upon them any special privilege denied to others. (5) That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. According to the applicant, the ten-foot height increase to 45 feet is the minimum variance to ensure the billboard faces will not obscure adjoining properties and adjoining ground signs and be clearly visible from County Road 10. The applicant suggests that the additional height will not be easily perceptible yet would ensure visibility for their sign as well as adjacent signage. To demonstrate this, the applicant has provided a computer- generated rendering of both a 35 foot tall sign and a 45 foot tall sign on the Mermaid property. (6) The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. The City Council explicitly established the maximum height for a billboard on County Road 10 to be 35 feet in recognition of the fact that the roadway is a community corridor as opposed to a regional corridor. The applicant will argue that NOT granting the variance would cause a detriment to both the host property as well as the adjoining property owned by Mr. John Kopas. (7) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Based on the review of the hardship criteria, it is not readily apparent to staff that a hardship exists, despite the fact that the lack of visibility from the perspective of the outdoor advertising industry and any potential outdoor advertiser is clearly considered a hardship. The Planning Commission denied the request citing lack of hardship.