Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C1i~ford Lund, Case No. 2509 <br /> <br />paqe 2 <br /> <br />In this case, the church fronts on an odd-shaped piece of <br />right-of-way for the frontage road (see attached sketch). The <br />right-of-way lines do not parallel the frontage. road at this <br />corner of the church property, thus creating a much deeper <br />boulevard than is usual or necessary. This is due to the shape of <br />the existing parcels that were acquired for the frontage road <br />right-of-way, which was put in long after snelling Avenue was <br />built. staying back 30' from this line does not serve the public <br />purpose for which front setbacks are intended and puts the <br />property in an unfair position compared to other properties along <br />this same street. Due to its shape and size, it is unlikely that <br />the piece of right-of-way immediately adjacent to the proposed <br />sign would ever be developed for any purpose, and if it did, then <br />the sign would be in a side yard and not a front yard needing a <br />30' setback. <br /> <br />We have illustrated the situation on the attached site plan. The <br />actual right-of-way line is shown abutting the church property. <br />We have sketched in an "imaginary extension" of the right-of-way <br />line, which is where the right-of-way would be if it parallelled <br />the frontage road in a more typical situation. We have shown a <br />30' setback from this imaginary line. As the sketch shows, the <br />location of the sign at the proposed 5' setback is still behind a <br />30' setback from the imaginary extension of the right-of-way. In <br />other words, the sign location meets the intent, if not the <br />letter, of the setback ordinance. <br /> <br />3. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION <br /> <br />The church is allowed a sign of reasonable size at a reasonable <br />setback. If the right-of-way configuration at this property edge <br />were more normal, the proposed location would be acceptable. The <br />applicant did not create this situation. The unfair position they <br />are in relative to other similarly situated properties can be <br />considered a hardship. We recommend approval of the variance <br />request with the condition that the existing sign be removed. <br />