07-05-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson again stated Clear Channel would suggest they are not here because this site is something they would prefer to have rather than the golf course site. They were required to remove their signs from the former golf course. The site on Highway 35W is one site that gives Clear Channel the visibility they are looking for. Director Ericson directed the Planning Commission’s attention to the survey in the Staff report. He indicated it provides the Commission with a good view of the setback. He pointed out that Program Avenue curves to the southwest while Highway 35W maintains a straight north south orientation. If the billboard were placed any farther south of the property, it would be too far from Highway 35W to give good visibility. It also does not disrupt parking on the host property. The billboard can be sited between the pond and the right of way without much trouble. Commissioner Hegland asked if this request is based on the cost incurred by the 15 foot setback or is it a location for a visibility issue. Director Ericson responded the issue is finding the best location for siting the billboard. Bringing the billboard 10 feet closer to the right of way would enhance visibility, but this is not the primary reason. The pond does not allow for much flexibility. Staff feels this is the minimum to satisfy the hardship. The pond is an immovable feature. Director Ericson informed the Planning Commission it must determine if the applicant demonstrates a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Director Ericson pointed out there are resolutions attached to the report for the Planning Commission’s action. There is only the resolution for approval of the variance. If the Planning Commission decides to deny the variance, Staff would prepare a denial resolution. There is also only a resolution for approval of the Interim Use Permit. Again, if the Planning Commission feels there is justification to deny the resolution, Staff can be directed to draft a denial of the Interim Use Permit. Staff does feel there is sufficient justification to deny the resolution. Chair Stevenson stated they have not looked at this previously and asked for input from the public. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 8:15. Mr. Glidden, 5240 Edgewood Drive, asked if Mr. Ericson has a map that identifies this location. Planning Associate Heller provided a location map for Mr. Glidden. She pointed out and discussed specific reference points. Mr. Glidden asked what businesses are located in the area. Director Ericson stated there are a number of businesses here. Mr. Glidden believes this is a more reasonable site than the proposed location at the Mermaid. Commissioner Miller mentioned she has a problem with the wording of the variance. She recommended corrections. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 8:20.