Loading...
05-25-2004 BA MIN MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2004 Members Present: Chair Ropp,Commissioners Anderson,Curtis,Lemke,Offerman,Pederson and Stevens 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 Ropp. 2. Consider 5/25/04 Board of Adjustments Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE MAY 25,2004 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 111 3. Consider 4/27/04 Board of Adjustments Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PEDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE APRIL 27,2004,BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION: -REMOVE REFERENCES TO"CHAIR PEDERSON"AND CHANGE TO "CHAIR ROPP" MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4.1. Request by Mark and Diane Olson for Setback Variance,Case No.V 04-03 Senior Planner Scott Harlicker stated that Mark and Diane Olson request a 16-foot variance to the front yard setback to allow a front yard setback of 19 feet for property located at 18778 Yankton Street. Mr.Harlicker reviewed information from the applicant regarding destruction of the home by fire in October 2003 and plans to rebuild on the same foundation. Mr.Harlicker noted that the front yard setback for the existing foundation ranges from 30 feet to 19 feet. He reviewed the five findings which must be met in order to grant a variance. Staff recommends approval of the variance based on the findings as noted. Chair Ropp opened the public hearing. Mark Olson, applicant stated that Yankton Street is approximately 50 feet from his home and that he maintains the street himself by plowing and grading it. He asked if other • property owners on this section of Yankton would be required to go through this process if Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 May 25,2004 any of their homes were destroyed by fire,since they all have similar setbacks to Yankton • Street. Senior Planner Scott Harlicker stated yes. Mr.Olson stated that there would be a reduction in his insurance settlement if he does not rebuild his home on the same site. He asked if he could file a variance for the other home he owns on the site adjacent to this one, so that if he were in a similar situation,he could rebuild. Mr.Harlicker stated that a variance is only viable for one year,and then would expire. Director of Planning Michele McPherson stated that in order to accommodate all the property owners in this neighborhood along Yankton Street,staff would have to come up with a zoning district with special setbacks. She stated that it is likely that there other areas in a similar situation,such as on the other side of the river. Ms.McPherson stated that the process would be very time-consuming for staff and would require Council direction. Mr. Olson asked if could make the request in writing. Ms.McPherson stated yes. A resident of Big Lake Township,Lot 11,Robinson Addition,expressed his concern for the trees which were cut down and left lying on the ground on the Big Lake Township side of his property. Ms.McPherson stated that this issue is being dealt with by staff. Mr.Olson noted that the trees the Big Lake Township resident was referring to were cut down on Outlot B which is located in Big Lake Township. There being no further public comment,Chair Ropp closed the public hearing. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER PEDERSON AND SECONDED BY • COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY MARK AND DIANE OLSON TO ALLOW A 19-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK,CASE NO.V 04-03,BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP. IN 1995,WHEN THEY APPLIED FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE ADDITION,THE APPLICANT RECEIVED WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY FOR THE 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. REQUIRING THEM TO DIG UP THE OLD FOUNDATION AND REPLACE IT 5 FEET FURTHER BACK WOULD FORCE THE HOUSE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SHORELINE SETBACK,REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FILL AND REMOVAL OF A TERRACED AND LANDSCAPED PATIO.BY MOVING THE HOUSE CLOSER TO THE RIVER THE NEIGHBOR'S VIEW OF THE RIVER WOULD BE AFFECTED. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP. 2. THE HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES,WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND THE STRUCTURE INVOLVED AND WHICH ARE NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF,OR APPLICABLE TO,OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURE IN THE SAME AREA. • THE HARDSHIP IS CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES,WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY AND Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 3 May 25,2004 THE STRUCTURE INVOLVED AND WHICH ARE NOT • CHARACTERISTIC OF,OR APPLICABLE TO,OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURE IN THE SAME AREA.THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE AND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 30' SETBACK ARE UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY. 3. THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE. OTHER RESIDENCES IN THIS AREA ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK 4. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION. THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT A CONSEQUENCE OF THE APPLICANT'S ACTION OR INACTION.NEITHER THE FIRE NOR THE APPROVED 30 FOOT SETBACK ARE THE RESULT OF THE PETITIONER'S ACTION. 5. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO OR ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THE PROPERTY IS • LOCATED AND WILL BE IN KEEPING WITH SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. THE REQUEST WOULD NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4.2. Request by Scottish Rite Childhood Language Disorder Clinics of Minnesota,Inc.for Variance to the Sign Ordinance,Case No.V 04-04 Director of Planning Michele McPherson explained that the applicant is requesting the variance in order to allow a second freestanding sign at 11090 183rd Circle NW(The Pines Town Office Park). Ms.McPherson noted that it is staff's interpretation that the development is only allowed one freestanding sign,and a monument sign has been placed on the site. The applicant requests adding a second 4-foot by 8-foot freestanding sign south of their building near County Road 12. Ms.McPherson reviewed the five findings that must be met in order for a variance to be approved. Staff recommends denial of the request,as it does not meet items 1,2 and 3 of the five criteria. Chair Ropp asked how many tenants are in the development. Ms.McPherson estimated that there were three tenants in one building and at least six in the other. Chair Ropp asked if the sign regulations would allow a sign on the façade to extend beyond the building. Ms. McPherson stated that the sign ordinance would not allow a projecting sign and that signs must be flat and parallel to the building. Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 4 May 25,2004 Commissioner Offerman asked if the office condominiums were owned or rented. Ms. • McPherson stated that they are owned. Commissioner Offerman asked who owns the common space. Ms.McPherson stated that there is an owner's association similar to a residential townhouse association and that the common space is shared. Chair Ropp opened the public hearing. Jerry Oliver,2645 Garland Lane,Plymouth,MN,representing the Scottish Rite organization,stated that there are three buildings with three units in each building. Mr. Oliver stated that the organization is gift-leasing the space from the owner at$1 per year. He reviewed the scope of the clinic's volunteer services in working with children with speech and language disorders,and autism. He noted that their office has received 62 calls for assistance from parents in the surrounding area. Mr.Oliver stated that they have received approval of the proposed sign from the owner of the property. There being no further public comment,Chair Ropp closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stevens expressed his concern that a precedent would be set for other tenants in similar situations to request signs. He stated he opposed the request. Commissioner Pederson stated that he agreed with Commissioner Stevens. He stated that he appreciated what Mr.Oliver and his organization was doing,but that he could not support approval. He asked staff if it would be possible to allow an additional monument sign which would identify all the other tenants. 4111 Ms.McPherson stated that unfortunately the original owner did not install an identification sign and the lots have since been sold to others. She suggested an alternative would be to go back to the owner and request two monument signs,one for each street frontage,so that the tenants of the buildings could be identified. Ms.McPherson explained that an ordinance amendment would be required to allow two signs for parcels with two street frontages. Chair Ropp asked for clarification of this process. Ms.McPherson stated if this variance is denied,it will go to the City Council on appeal. At that time,the City Council could direct staff to draft an ordinance amendment for the multi-tenant signage,or the applicant could request the ordinance amendment. Commissioner Anderson concurred that the request does not meet the variance criteria and that consideration of an ordinance amendment to allow a second monument sign would be appropriate if the owner is willing. Commissioner Pederson asked if the applicant could request a variance for a second monument sign,since this alternative appears acceptable to the Commissioners. Ms. McPherson stated that it would be difficult to justify a hardship for a sign variance and that State Statute requires proof of hardship. She stated that the ordinance amendment would be more appropriate. Commissioner Lemke stated that he was not in favor of the variance and that the location proposed by the applicant was not the proper place for a multi-tenant sign. He felt a multi- tenant sign should be placed at 183rd Circle and Line Avenue. • Chair Pederson stated that the applicant is not the owner of the lease space. Ms.McPherson suggested that the owners could meet and come to an agreement on the signage. Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 5 May 25,2004 • MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS TO DENY THE REQUEST FORA VARIANCE BY SCOTTISH RITE CHILDHOOD LANGUAGE DISORDER CLINICS OF MINNESOTA,INC.,CASE NO.V 04-04,BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP, AS THE BUSINESS CAN PROVIDE ADVERTISING VIA A WALL SIGN. IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WILL NOT ALLOW ANY OF THE TENANTS OF THE PINES TOWN OFFICE PARK ANY BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION IN THE FORM OF A MONUMENT SIGN. 2. THIS PROPERTY FUNCTIONS THE SAME AS ANY MULTI-TENANT AREA WHICH HAS ONE FREESTANDING SIGN. 3. OTHER PROPERTIES HAVE THE SAME SIGNAGE OPPORTUNITIES AS THE APPLICANT. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 5. Other Business -None 6. Adjournment There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary •