07-07-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Clear Channel Variance Request July 7, 2004 Page 4 Spacing: The City Code requires that billboards be separated by no less than 750 feet as measured from the center of each billboard. This standard is more restrictive than MnDOT standards, which allows separation of no less than 500 feet. The City is no longer entertaining a proposal to expand the golf course by nine holes; as a result, the area between the Sysco and the golf course will remain natural and undisturbed. In an effort to preserve this natural area and to minimize the potential loss of hundreds of trees due to the construction of the billboard and associated service road, the separation between billboards 2 and 3 and billboards 3 and 4 are proposed to be reduced from 750 feet to 600 feet. In addition, the separation between billboards 4 and 5 would be reduced to 500 feet, the minimum spacing allowed by MnDOT. (Refer to Exhibit A.) Variance Considerations: For a variance request to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in Mounds View) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The original billboard applications were predicated on their being a berm upon which the billboards would be located. Without the berm, the signs would be partially obscured by trees, some of which cannot be cut as they are MnDOT property. The City’s decision to not expand the course and not construct the berm has caused a hardship for the applicant. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would create a hardship for the applicant due to the City’s action regarding the berm and course expansion. Lease agreements were signed in good faith with the expectation of the additional height provided by the berm. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. The City has expressed its desire to retain the natural area, preserve trees and protect the play of the course and no longer intends to construct the originally proposed berm.