08-20-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kopas Variance Report August 20, 2003 Page 3 Variance Considerations: For a variance 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 this case) 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: 1. 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. A variance for additional signage is unique among the spectrum of possible variances in that the Sign Code is not a part of the Zoning Code; rather it is a chapter within the building code. The building code however indicates that any requested deviations be handled as would a deviation from the Zoning Code. The property is zoned B-3, Highway Business Commercial. Exterior building mounted signage is limited to 100 square feet per building occupant in this and all other commercial districts, regardless of the building mass—its height and length. Some sign codes from other municipalities allow for greater sign area for multiple building fronts while others allow more based on wall area. Mounds View’s code simply limits each building occupant to 100 square feet. There does not appear to be any apparent exceptional or extraordinary circumstances involving this property or the request other than the bulk of the adjoining uses (the Mermaid and the Business Park) which may hinder and or obscure visibility to the subject location. 2. 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 not necessarily deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, however denying the request would put the occupants in an unfavorable position based upon the City’s past practice of approving reasonable signage variances, especially for business with multiple building frontages. 3. 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.