[Winona Online Democracy] With some decades of experience in writing, administering, and teaching about zoning ordinances I must weigh in on the recent mention of Menard's variance request for a 100-foot-tall sign vs. the 24-foot standard. If these numbers are correct I would urge the decision makers in Winona (Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment, or City Council on variances?) to listen politely to the presentations and then deny the variance. A height variance, in my opinion, is almost never justified.
Minnesota statutes give every city in the state the criteria for judging variances to their zoning codes, the most important of which is that applying the standards in the code would impose "an undue hardship" on the property owner. Furthermore, the conditions justifying the variance must be unique to this property and not most others, they cannot have been created by the applicant, nor should the variance be granted for economic reasons alone. If I am filling in the blanks right with my assumptions on the Menard's case, their request meets none of these criteria. When I teach seminars to planning commissioners and city council members on zoning, and when I face developers across the table at city halls where I consult, I distill these criteria into the simple question, "why can't you meet the standards in our code?" For a more typical variance (garage setback or setback for a home addition) the right answer would be that the slope of the land or the presence of a large old oak keeps me from building easily in one part of the lot and so to make reasonable improvements to the property I have to encroach on the setbacks in another part of the lot. Seems reasonable to me - recommend approval. Consider a height variance and answer the same question. "I can't build the sign as low as you want because . . ." The reasons would probably center on visibility from the highway. It is true that a 100-foot sign can be seen more easily and from farther away than a 24-foot sign, but I doubt the code has a performance standard that suggests all highway businesses are guaranteed visibility from several miles away. The city need not be in the business of guaranteeing every business optimum visibility, just reasonable visibility. A 24-foot sign will serve just fine, thank you. One of the major blights on our landscape, in my opinion, is the proliferation of tall pylon signs. It's one thing to continue to allow them to be built at all, quite another to grant variances to let them get even bigger. Having made my plea against this variance I would point out that there are some cases where a height variance might be justified: * If the ground where the sign sits is below the grade of the adjoining street, by say 10 feet, then let the sign be 10 feet taller so that it is 24 feet above the street, not above the ground. Quite reasonable. * If conditions change such that a property used to front on a street or highway and now some of the property between there and the street is built on, blocking visibility of a sign to cars on that street. Fine - raise the sign just enough to be seen over the new buildings. * If changes in building styles haven't kept up with the code. For example, many homes are now being built with much steeper roofs than a few decades ago, so the overall height of a two-story home may be many feet taller than the code would allow. In this case, grant the variance and hurry up and change the code so the next season's builders don't get caught in the same bind. With all the agonized discussion over Wal-Mart in this forum, much of that problem boiled down to not having any ordinances in place that would prevent Wal-Mart from doing what they do. With the Menard's sign, if you agree that it's a problem, you already have the code in place - just enforce it! That's my three cents. - Phil Carlson, Mpls -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John N. Finn Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 6:27 AM To: Winona on line (WOD) Subject: Re: [Winona] The Walmart Saga [Winona Online Democracy] ----- Original Message ----- From: "John N. Finn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Winona on line (WOD)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 11 novembre, 2003 06:41 Subject: Re: [Winona] The Walmart Saga >........................ > BTW: speaking of billboards. Menards is making another attempt to get a > zoning variance so they can have a one hundred foot high sign. That's twice > as high as now allowed, I think. > > ----- Correction ----- Menards is asking for a variance from the 24 foot height limit for an off-premises sign. They want a 100 foot tall sign. The public hearing for this is November 19, 5:00 p.m. at city hall. _______________________________________________ This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org _______________________________________________ This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
