Agenda Packets - 2006/07/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Clear Channel IUP & Variance Report July 24, 2006 Page 6 Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff had drafted a resolution to deny the requested Interim Use Permit at 2200 County Road 10 for the reasons identified by the Planning Commission—that the billboard would adversely impact visibility in the area and would become an obstruction to the adjacent property. The Council discussed the IUP at their meeting on July 10 and asked that the matter be brought back for consideration on July 24th to deal with the IUP and variance appeal at the same time. The Mermaid has determined that a billboard at the proposed location would not be or cause an obstruction so long as the height of the proposed billboard is allowed at 45 feet. Mr. Kopas of Abbey Carpet also believes the billboard would not be an obstruction if erected at a 45 foot height. Unfortunately, the maximum permitted height for a billboard at this location, as determined by the City Council, is 35 feet. As such, Clear Channel has requested the variance to exceed the maximum height by another ten feet to 45 feet. The Planning Commission denied the variance request and Clear Channel has appealed this denial to the City Council. The City Council will need to make a determination whether it believes sufficient hardship exists to warrant overturning the Planning Commission’s denial, all things considered. Recommendation: Hold the public hearing and consider testimony from staff, the applicant, the property owner, residents or any other affected person or interested party. Afterwards, the Council may determine that one of the following three options are appropriate: Option 1. Approve the IUP and the Variance as requested. A version of Resolution 6875 is available for the Council’s action which would approve both actions. Option 2. Approve the IUP, deny the Variance. A version of Resolution 6875 has been prepared to approve just the IUP. The denial of the variance would need to be adopted separately. The resolution to deny the variance is also attached however will only be assigned a “number” if the Council chooses this option. Option 3. Deny both the IUP and the Variance. A version of Resolution 6875 is available for the Council’s consideration if that is the chosen course of action. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Survey Snapshot 4. Proposed Billboard Design 5. Computer-generated height comparisons 6. Letter from John Kopas, 2214 County Road 10 7. Letter from Gary French, 8310 Sunnyside Road 8. Planning Commission Resolution 844-06 Denying Variance 9. City Council Resolution 6875 (all versions)