2003 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Kopas Variar�ce Report August 20, 2003 Page 3 . ., • For a variance to be approved, the applicani needs to demonsirafe a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property fihat makes a liieral interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota sfatutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case} review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. ihese criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code cfearly stafies that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do nofi apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinify and result from lot size or shape, topography or oiher circumsiances over which the owners of the property since the e�fective date hereof have had no control. A variance for additiona! signage is unique among fhe sp�ctrum of possible variances in thaf the Sign Code is not a part of the Zoning Code; rather ii is a chapfer wifhin the building code. The building code however indicates fhat any requesfed devia�ions be handled as would a deviaiion from the Zanir�g Code. The property is zoned 8-3, Highway Business Commercial. Exterior building mounted signage is limifed fo i00 square feef per building occupant in this and al! other - � commercial districfs, regardless otfhe building mass--its heighf and lengfh. Some sign -�' :'`' codes from other municipalifies allow for greater sign area for multiple building fronts while o�hers a!!ow more based on wall area. Mounds View's code simply limifs each building occupani fo 100 square feef. There does not appear to be any apparent exceptional or extraordinary circumstances involving this property or fhe request other than the bulk of the adjoining uses (the Nlermaid and the Business Park) which may hinder and or obscure visibilify to the subj�ct locafion. 2. The literal infierpretation of fhe provisions of this Tit1e would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in ihe same district under ihe terms of this Tit(e. The liferal inferpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not necessarily deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by ofher properties in the same zane, however denying the requesf would put the occupanis in an unfavorable posifion based upon fhe City's pasf practice of approving reasonable signage variances, especially for business wifh multipfe building frontages. 3. That fhe speciai condifiions or circumsfiances do not resuli from fhe actions of the applicanf. - The special conditions do nof resulf from fhe actions of fhe applicant.