12-28-1999 BA MIN • MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1999
Members Present: Chair Mesich, Commissioners Chambers, Kuester,Thompson and
Schuster
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior
Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary
1. Call Meeting To Order
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Board of
Adjustments was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Mesich.
2. Consider 12/28/99 Board of Adjustments Agenda
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 28, 1999, BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA. COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
• 3. Consider 11/23/99 Board of Adjustments Minutes
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 23, 1999, BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES. COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
4.1. Request by Applebees Restaurant for Variance to allow 4th Wall Sign, Public
Hearing Case No. V 99-17
Staff report by Michele McPherson. Applebees Restaurant, 18891 Freeport Street,
has requested a variance to allow a fourth wall sign so that the business may be
identified from Highway 169. In 1998, a request for a fourth sign was denied by
the Board of Adjustments and the City Council also denied the request. The
Council suggested that the monument sign be moved to face Highway 169, but
Applebees was unable to do so because of the utilities easement adjacent to
the right-of-way. Staff recommends denial of the variance because the five
conditions for granting a variance cannot be met.
The Commissioners and staff discussed the findings for granting a variance.
Chair Mesich opened the public hearing.
Evelyn Goodson, general manager of Applebees, explained that the restaurant
cannot be seen from Highway 169 since the strip mall to the south was
• constructed. Commissioner Thompson asked if Ms. Goodson was aware that only
Board of Adjustments Minutes
December 28, 1999
Page 2
• two wall signs were allowed. Ms. Goodson stated that she was aware of the limit,
but that she did not know a strip mall was to be built next door and would block
their visibility from the highway.
Commissioner Chambers asked why staff has determined that the signage on the
front of the building is two signs. Scott Harlicker explained that the wording is
physically separated by both distance and depth on the building from the logo
sign.
Ms. Goodson stated that Applebees has tried banners on the highway side of the
building, but they feel strongly that a permanent wall sign is needed to help
people find the restaurant.
There being no further public comment, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kuester asked if the amount of signage allowed for businesses such
as Applebees is different than for "big box" retailers. Michele McPherson noted
that most "big box" retailers are located in a PUD, which is tailored to suit the
development and signage may not be the same as what is generally allowed in
the ordinance. Scott Harlicker noted that two wall signs will be allowed in the Elk
River Crossing Planned Unit Development.
Commissioner Schuster stated that the signage on the front of the building should
not be considered two signs and that the Commission has the ability to make that
determination. He felt the applicant meets the five findings for granting a
• variance.
Chair Mesich noted that other properties in the immediate area are also limited
to two wall signs.
Discussion followed regarding options for combining the signage to allow
Applebees a sign on the Highway 169 side of their building.
Commissioner Schuster felt that since the building design does not allow running
the wording together on the front of the building, it should not be considered two
signs, staff had to make a subjective decision regarding the sign on the front of
the building. He stated that the Commission should be able to make the
determination whether it is two signs or one sign.
Commissioner Thompson stated that she did not feel the Planning Commission
has the authority to make that decision.
Michele McPherson explained that since there is no definition in the ordinance to
specify how close two components of a sign need to be considered one sign or
two signs. She stated that when observing the front of the building, it appears to
be two signs.
Commissioner Schuster felt that the Commission has some flexibility to determine
whether or not there are two signs on the front of the building, and that calling it
two signs is literal enforcement of the ordinance and would be detrimental to the
• business.
Board of Adjustments Minutes
December 28, 1999
Page 3
• Chair Mesich did not feel it would be possible to determine whether or not
denying the additional sign would be detrimental to the business. Commissioner
Schuster countered that it would deprive Applebees of the rights enjoyed by
others.
Commissioner Kuester felt that the property owner should have been aware that
since the neighboring property was zoned commercial, development would
eventually occur. She did not feel the request met the five findings for granting a
variance.
Chair Mesich stated that it is not the Planning Commission's role to determine
whether or not the front signage is one or two signs. Commissioner Schuster
disagreed.
COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY APPLEBEES
RESTAURANT FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FOURTH WALL SIGN, PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NO. V 99-17, BECAUSE THE FIVE FINDINGS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE
CANNOT BE MET. COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 3-2.
5. Adjournment
There being no further business, COMMISSIONER THOMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN
THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 5-0. Commissioners Chambers and Schuster opposed.
The meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
jirj
Debbie Huebner
Recording Secretary
•