04-11-2006 BA MIN • MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL
TUESDAY, APRIL I I, 2006
Members Present: Chair Lemke,Commissioners Anderson,Offerman,Ropp,Scott,Stevens
and Westgaard
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Scott Clark,Senior Planner Scott
Harlicker,Planner Chris Leeseberg,City Engineer Terry Maurer,and
Recording Secretary Tina Allard
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 Anderson.
2. Consider Board of Adjustments Agenda
Chair Lemke stated Item 3.2. (regarding a sign variance for Elk River Ford)would be
discussed at the end of the Planning Commission meeting.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY
• COMMISSIONER ROPP TO APPROVE THE APRIL 11,2006 BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA AS AMENDED.MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
3.1 Consider Request by Richard and Nancy Duggan for Front Yard Setback Variance, Public
Hearing-Case No.V 06-01
Mr.Leeseberg stated the applicant would like to demolish their current home and build a
new one so they are requesting a 15 foot front yard setback variance in order to get out of a
floodway.He stated the home at its current location limits the size of home that can be built.
Mr.Leeseberg reviewed the criteria for a variance.
Commissioner Stevens questioned if it would be better to consider amending the setbacks
for the whole neighborhood in the floodway.
Chair Lemke opened the public hearing.
Greg Johnson, 19046 Troy Street-Stated he approves of the variance request.
Steve Rohlf, 12821 188th Avenue-Recommended approval of the variance request.
Sue Bergstrom, 13866 189th Avenue-Supported the variance request. She stated the
applicant would have less flooding concerns.
There being no one else to speak to this issue,Chair Lemke closed the public hearing.
•
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY
• COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR CASE NO.V 06-02 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CAUSE
UNDUE HARDSHIP. LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD CAUSE
UNDUE HARDSHIP,AS THE APPLICANT WOULD ONLY BE ABLE
TO BUILD A HOME APPROXIMATELY 18-FEET IN DEPTH DUE TO
REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND THE REQUIRED
SETBACK FROM THE RIVER.
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.HARDSHIP IS CAUSED AS AN
ADDITIONAL LAYER OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE
IMPLEMENTED DUE TO THE RIVER. ALSO,THIS LOT WAS
CREATED LONG BEFORE THE CURRENT ZONING
REQUIREMENTS. BOTH OF WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THIS
PROPERTY.
3. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT A
CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR
INACTION.
• 4. 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. THE PETITIONER
WOULD BE DEPRIVED THE RIGHT OF BUILDING A HOME IN
THE R1B ZONING DISTRICT.
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.OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN THE AREA HAVE
VARYING ORIENTATIONS TO THE RIVER AND STREET AND THE
PLACEMENT OF THIS HOUSE WOULD NOT AFFECT ANY SIGHT
LINES.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
The Board of Adjustments recessed at 6:40 p.m.
The Board of Adjustments reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
1111/
3.2. Consider Variance Request by Elk River Ford for Signage,Public Hearing-Case No.V 06-
• 02
Mr.Harlicker stated the applicant is requesting a variance to the sign ordinance for three
freestanding signs.The three existing signs are non-conforming according to current
ordinance but are grandfathered in according to previous ordinances.The applicant would
like to move two signs to a different location,remove a third sign and add a readerboard,but
if they move or replace the signs a variance would be required as they would become non-
conforming.Mr.Harlicker reviewed the five criteria that must be met for a variance and
recommended denial because the applicant doesn't meet four of the criteria.
Chair Lemke opened the public hearing.
Steve Rohlf,Ford representative-Stated Ford is closing a major access from TH 10 into
their site and signage is needed at the two entrances.He stated Ford is much more land
intensive than the neighboring auto dealership.He stated Ford has multiple businesses
onsite.He stated it is a hardship to adequately advertise all of their businesses on two
freestanding signs.He stated if frontage on the newly combined lot was divided into
individual lots for each business on their site,there would be twelve signs onsite.He stated
the two freestanding entrance signs are needed for safety and to inform customers where the
entrances are located.
Commissioner Ropp stated signs are necessary at the entrances but did not believe one was
necessary in the middle of the lot.He stated the applicant could put a sign on their building.
Commissioner Offerman questioned why the readerboard couldn't be put on the building
• and cited Northbound Liquor as an example.
Mr.Rohlf stated this option was considered but was a safety issue due to the angle of the
sign to traffic on Highway 10.He stated it is best to keep the readerboard perpendicular to
the highway.
Chair Lemke stated the sign ordinance recognizes there may be a hardship to having
increased frontage and that's why it allows a site to have a second sign.
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE
VARIANCE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER FORD BASED ON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS:
1. LITERAL ENFORCEENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL NOT CAUSE
UNDUE HARDSHIP. THE APPLICANT CURRENTLY HAS 3
FREESTANDING SIGNS.THE SIGN FACE COULD BE CHANGED
ON EACH SIGN WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE. BECAUSE
ONE OF THE SIGNS IS BEING REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A
NEW SIGN AND ANOTHER IS BEING RELOCATED,A VARIANCE IS
NEEDED. THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT ALONG WITH THE TWO
ALLOWABLE FREESTANDING SIGNS IS SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY
THE DEALERSHIP.
• 2. THERE IS NO HARDSHIP 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
STRUCTURES IN THE SAME AREA.THE APPLICANT'S SITUATION
IS NOT UNIQUE REGARDING FREESTANDING SIGNS ALONG
HIGHWAY 10.THE DEALERSHIP ACROSS THE HIGHWAY,WHICH
IS SIMILAR TO THE APPLICANT,HAS TWO FREESTANDING SIGNS
ALONG HIGHWAY 10.
3. THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ORDINANCE WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF
RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME
DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE.
4. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT A
CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETIIONER'S OWN ACTION OR
INACTION.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
4. Other Business
Mr.Clark stated Mr.Harlicker has resigned from the city and will be going to the City of
Coon Rapids.He stated an offer has been made to an applicant for the newly created
Planning Manager position.
• Mr.Clark provided an update of downtown construction projects.
5. Adjournment
There being no further business Chair Lemke adjourned the meeting of the Board of
Adjustments at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/*/
Tina Allard
Recording Secretary
•