5.3 PCSR 08-23-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission, Riverview Sports Page 4 August 23, 1994 • inches or five (5) feet above the original grade before construction of the wall began. Staff is unclear to the amount of view which is lost from the highway because of the wall and fence. The third point addresses whether literal application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by others. The applicant argues that because of the location of their property it becomes more difficult for potential customers to view the location of Riverview Sports. The ability to place the sign closer to the setback and increasing the size of the sign would increase visibility. Staff can not use economic considerations alone when considering a to constitute a hardship. After visiting the area, staff noticed that there are other commercial properties located in the same general area as Riverview Sports. If a variance is granted for this proposal, other requests may appear from those businesses and similar responses may be required. The fourth point addresses whether the special circumstances are not a consequence of the applicants actions. The applicant argues that MnDOT is creating the special circumstance by building a wall and fence that obstructs view toward Riverview Sports. Staff would agree that the applicant is not responsible for the actions taken place involving the wall and fence issue. • The applicant also argues that the proposed sign can not be moved back because it would block an existing driveway area. After visiting the site, staff noticed that several boats were being parked in and around the sign location. Moving the proposed sign back eight (8) feet to meet City Code requirements would not block the driveway area. Boats were being parked near the driveway area and create more of a obstruction than the proposed sign. The last point addresses whether or not the variance will affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the City. The applicant argues that there has been an existing sign in that location and nobody has ever complained about the location of the sign. The applicant also argues that the square footage of the sign in not unreasonable because other businesses in nearby communities have larger signs. Staff would agree that the proposed sign because of its size and location does not appear to affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the City. Whenever staff considers a variance request, staff must consider whether or not precedence will be set by the actions taken. If a variance is granted from the City Code requirements, will this set precedence for future applicants? In relation to this particular request, staff anticipates that similar requests may be presented in the future. If this request is granted it may set precedence II for the future. lundquis.troy