Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Plan <br />Planning Commission April 19, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Coyle indicated he would like the record to reflect that this is the obstacle they are seeking <br />to overcome by virtue of the variance application, and that the hardship is warranted on the basis <br />of the City’s need to be able to protect the play of the golf course, as well as the water features <br />that are present on the golf course, which preclude the adjustment of any of the billboards to <br />accommodate the spacing issue. On behalf of the applicants, he extended his appreciation to the <br />Planning Commissioners for their time in attempting to resolve these issues. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson requested clarification of the proposed locations of the billboards as <br />depicted on Exhibit A. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson explained that there was sufficient room along the frontage of <br />Highway 10 to allow the Bridges Golf Course billboards to be more closely spaced together, <br />however, they are located as proposed due to the presence of water features, greens, and items of <br />this nature on the golf course property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the distance between the Sysco’s easternmost <br />billboard and the property line. Planning Associate Ericson stated this billboard is proposed to <br />be less than 250 feet from the property line. He explained that the parking lot is located to the <br />north, and the stormwater holding pond is located to the south and immediately adjacent to the <br />proposed billboard, therefore, this is the only possible site. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland advised that this places the burden upon Sysco rather than the City. He <br />explained that the issue under consideration is the 500-foot spacing between the billboards, <br />however, if Sysco’s proposed billboard is less than 250 feet from their property line, they are <br />encroaching upon their legal limit. He stated this has not been established in the discussions, <br />and the variance would not change this, however, he did not believe that the statement that the <br />City is at fault in this situation is completely accurate. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kaden stated Item e indicates “the variance requested is the minimum variance <br />required which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered <br />a hardship.” He pointed out that both Sysco and the City were pursuing the billboards for <br />economic reasons in that billboards generate revenue, however, this was not addressed in the <br />response. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a matter of interpretation, in that billboards are <br />allowed, and there is room to make them fit. He explained that the economic factors could come <br />into play, however, there is some subjectivity with regard to the criteria, and through the <br />discussions at previous meetings and at the staff level, staff felt that economic conditions alone <br />were not driving this variance request. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kaden stated the City submitted their application for the billboards first, and had <br />the locations of the City billboards planned out, therefore, Sysco could only have one billboard <br />without the variance, and was the Planning Commission was considering “that” the hardship.