07-05-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Director Ericson stated the applicant must show a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes the literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Clear Channel would argue that the 35-foot height limitation does impose a hardship to neighboring properties and to themselves in the sense that at 35 feet their sign or adjoining signage would be obscured. Clear Channel was asked to remove four signs from the former golf course location and work in good faith with the City to relocate the four signs. This is why the City Council approved, although not unanimously, Ordinance 769 that provides additional opportunities to relocate the signs. The locations to site a billboard include anywhere on Highway 35W, Highway 10, Old Highway 8 and the south side of County Road 10 south of the Woodale Drive intersection. This is presupposed on the appropriate zoning of B-2, B-3, PUD, or CRP. The site on the Mermaid property does satisfy all criteria. Director Ericson stated Clear Channel must meet all seven criteria to indicate a hardship exists. It is not clear whether all criteria can be satisfied. Clear Channel would argue that a hardship exists as the provisions of the Ordinance are arbitrary in the sense that all other sites were provided a 45-foot height whereas County Road 10 was provided a 35-foot height. Director Ericson stated in terms of the Interim Use Permit process, the Commission would look at this as it would a Conditional Use Permit. The Mermaid location for the billboard would not cause any adverse impacts or impact residentially zoned properties as the closest residential property is approximately 1000 feet away. Director Ericson stated the Code requirements are satisfied for this request. The issue for the Planning Commission to consider at this point is whether or not a sufficient hardship exists for Clear Channel that would warrant or justify approving the variance at this location. If the Planning Commission does see justification for a variance, a resolution to approve the request is attached. If the Planning Commission does not see a hardship, a resolution to deny the request is also attached. The recommendation of the Planning Commission would then be forwarded to City Council. Chair Stevenson felt it would be better to handle the resolution for an Interim Use Permit before the height resolution is considered. It seems more appropriate to approve or deny the Interim Use Permit as a recommendation to the Council. If it goes forward, then tackle the resolution for a height variance. He sees these as two separate issues. The Planning Commission is the body that years ago recommended, and were very explicit, that no other billboards would be erected on County Road 10. Now, with the Council’s directive that one more billboard be allowed, the Commission should rule on whether or not our recommendations for Interim Use be permitted and if so, add that the Commission strongly opposes any additional billboard on County Highway 10, but since the Council has directed there be another billboard south of Woodale, the Planning Commission would approve this. Commissioner Hegland asked if it is true that this was one of the designated areas, but not the only area designated as a possible site for a billboard. Director Ericson replied that is correct. Four locations have been approved for the billboards and Clear Channel must relocate a total of four billboards. Director Ericson remarked that there are not many options in each of the designated areas.