6.1. SR 07-19-2004
Item # 6. 1 ~
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Scott Harlicker, Senior Planne+j\
TO:
DATE:
July 19,2004
SUBJECT:
V 04-05
Request by Lafayette Woods Homeowners Association for
Variance to the Sign Ordinance
Reauest
Consider a request by the Lafayette Woods Homeowners Association for a variance to the
sign ordinance to a allow a second development sign.
Location
Lot 1, Block 5, Lafayette Woods 2nd Addition
Zonina/ Land Use
R1c (Single Family Residential) / MR (Medium Density Residential)
60 Day Rule
In order to comply with Minnesota Statute 15.99 (60 - Day Requirement), action must be
taken on this request by July 20, 2004
Attachments
. Location Map
. Site Plan
. Letter from applicant
Memo to Mayor and City Council/V 04-05
July 19, 2004
Page 2
. Air Photo
Overview
The applicant is requesting a second development sign. The sign ordinance allows one
development identification sign per development. The Lafayette Woods development has
two entrances, one on 194'h Avenue from Proctor Road and the second on Upland Street
from County Road 1. The entrance from Proctor has a formal development identification
sign while the entrance from County Road 1 does not. The sign on Proctor was approved
when the plat was approved.
Analysis
In order to grant a variance from the literal interpretation of the ordinance, the following
five conditions must be met:
1. Literal enforcement if the ordinance will cause undue hardship.
Staff does not feel that literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship.
The existing sign on 196'h Street is visible from Proctor Road. This proposed sign would
not be visible from County Road 1, a visitor would already be in the development to see
the sign.
2. The hardship is caused ~ special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the properry and
the structure involved and which are not characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the
same area.
This development is similar to other nearby developments, Nordic Woods and Oak Hills
which have just one development sign. There are no special conditions or circumstances.
3. The literal application if the provisions if this ordinance would deprive the petitioner if rights ef!jqyed ~
other properties in the same district under the terms rif this ordinance.
The literal application of this ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights
enjoyed by other properties in this area. Other developments in the area have one
development sign or no development sign.
4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence if the petitioner's own action or inaction.
There are no special circumstances unique to this property
5. The variance will not be injurious to or adverselY riffect the health, safety or we!fare of the residents of the
ciry or the neighborhood where the properry is located and will be in keeping with spirit and intent if the
ordinance.
The request would not adversely impact other properties in the vicinity.
s: \PLANNING \ Case Files \2004 \ V 04-05 Lafayette Woods Homeowners \ V04-05CC7 -19 .doc
Memo to Mayor and City Council/V 04-05
July 19,2004
Page 3
Board of Adiustment Meetina
At the Board of Adjustment meeting held on June 22nd, Nancy Clusiaun spoke at the public
hearing. She felt the sign was needed to clarify the entrance into the development and to
slow down traffic. The Board voted 5:0 to deny the request.
Recommendation
The Board of Adjustment voted 5:0 to deny this request for a variance to the sign ordinance
to allow a second development sign based on the above findings. An alternative to the
variance that the applicant might consider is an ordinance amendment to allow 2
identification/ entrance signs per development.
S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2004\ V 04-05 Lafayette Woods Homeowners\ V04-05CC7-19,doc
\ V ~\ V A~1Il\~7 f4! 'Y-'--l < a: I
I\\~~~S~\_/~~~~"" \ JJ~ i 1 t-
\~~ l.JJ 4 1\ ;;, t~ '( ~~ frc 'r, Iy ~
d ]X --' -'r :.J
/ I -: \ ..1' 'Il" ~ - . I\t j ~
("l ~,'~..M);J ~y - '---, ?--
MEADOWVALE SCHOOL ~ '\~~~o/~r\~ = ~ ~
---' D'> s~ Yru\~ IC:'}.~~Y='i -, H it-
~, /~ll~ ~~ <: i~
)'\.~~ C:) ;..--'
13D . ~ ~
~ \ 1 3R NUE 15
~y SITEI
~
\
\ \\{llqM~ III
~
~I~"f= -
IJ;- 0_
~I -
::'" -
--' -
.
---
\-\ po.. (
~~~~
=----
-
/
MEADO'~ ~ ~;~L \ \
oMMER\ ~-.....\ YpAl~K
~'~ -/
Cc ?;-----
~ ROAD
NO, 1
5 RVIG DR
ij.,T/ RIVER E K RIVER
\;~~ \ \
nJDVST PARK t>>\;\; ~DD\
,\ \ RIAL
= = = SECOND ~ '-------_ NbvST
V7 ~NP~ B --
~ --:-- ADDITION 0,
~-
~~;; ~
T - --,..... E'!1DOW ~~(;o/ Cx: S
IU-J- [l ~ ~ :\)
- -:L 1Ir--
t- d-- R-- I ~~~ (/
:; ~l ~---':: n:: /' -&~;R088 j\
.J:>..= JJ r.n 2 ~11.L.6'''NS_ )
-- lli..,.TI:::i .&i.~ 00 U V2A, T~~~~
T1~ z--- 'r----' '> n:: ~,
~ ~- ~- ...,. ~ ,hY;; I
~ ~= ~= ~ ~~~~ -.J~____ ~~4t,
~ Ts1H ~~E f€( ~~ ~!/J~'~~ ff ~OtvV-1
-.JM / ::-.....J ~~ -flY- "'" ~
\,,11; ~y~~ ~~~ 4- ::0 ()
.c 1 A~ \i j.' \ ---" ~~ r---=;- ~ - ~ ~
~r>" ./ :\) -- tV C z '~~~ Il ~DJ
'IJ sF-D " . ~ 0 0 r<-' ~ ---LJ
A.1: D p'r~ '?-~ l r5 ~ [5 ~~
----->-----J x :;;: > <{
~ _______________ ~ 1H 5T/,Lj" I
C '\C \ ~~~~ II- C3J f---1
~ \,\
~ \~
\
pARK ~
~
OAK
KNOLL
I
PARK
o TOWER
AUDITOR' -S
Location Map
-
o
C3"-
n::
n::
o
f-- "'--
g"-
n::
Q
I
-
:t:z
~
~
~
-
~
w
~ ~
w
>
L~~
1'-1 I ~K
~
N
Case Number: V 04-05
LAFA ymE WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.
00
'<:t
CO
00
rl
'<:t
N
(T)
LD
r---
00
N
IS)
N
'<:t
IS)
IS)
N
-~
00
rl
~--
lD
IS)
(f)
~
0:::
o
3:
Z
CD
H
(f)
W
l-
I-
W
.-l
.-l
H
CD
.,
.
,
,
,
CULTURED
STONE
CULTURED
STONE
rl
IS)
W
CD
.:r
0...
r i...... . CEMENT SLAB WI FOOTINGS UNDER COLUMNS - ......1
~ 1= 111111111111111111= II
~ I i....illllllllllllllllli....i I
.-L L TO.r:.y!EW.___._._._ r
Request by Lafayette Woods Subdivision Association for Variance
The Lafayette Woods Subdivision Association is requesting of the City of Elk River, a variance
to Land Development Regulations, Section 30-866, Item 8, which states: "One permanent area
identification sign per neighborhood, subdivision, or development, not to exceed 16 square feet
in the sign area."
1) We believe the hardships caused by enforcement of the ordinance include the following:
a) The property value of the homes near the County Road 1 entrance are affected by
comparison to the homes near the Proctor Road entrance; the Proctor Road side has a
sign at its entrance where the County Road 1 side does not.
b) A sign at the County Road 1 entrance would hopefully ward off speeding into the
neighborhood from that entrance. Because there is a distance between County Road 1
and the actual entrance in to Lafayette Woods, at first glance drivers might not be aware of
their entering a neighborhood. An identification sign would alert drivers that they are
entering a residential neighborhood.
c) For those residents near the County Road 1 entrance, an identification sign would serve
as a landmark for providing directions, just as the sign does at the Proctor Road
entrance. Currently their is only the city street sign for Upland Avenue, which is somewhat
hard to see while driving down County Road 1, to serve as a landmark to this entrance.
d) Several homeowners purchased their homes near the County Road 1 entrance with the
understanding that a sign would be forthcoming at that entrance.
2) We believe the hardship existsJJecause the developer did not or could not follow through on
what was promised to homeowners. Our understanding, from discussions with city personnel, is
that the developer could have requested signage at each entrance when he submitted his plans
for development.
3) The literal application of the provisions of the ordinance deprives those homeowners who live
near and use the County Road 1 entrance the same rights enjoyed by those homeowners who
live near and use the Proctor Road entrance which has an identification sign.
4) The hardships are caused by the lack of foresight in planning for the subdivision and/or lack
of follow-through on promises to potential homeowners made when developing the subdivision.
5) Because the location of the sign is well off County Road 1, it would not adversely affect
County Road 1 by adding more signage to it. City residents would only be affected in positive
ways by having a directional landmark, as well as an esthetically pleasing entrance to view.
Great care has been taken to maintain both entrances to this subdivision. As can be seen by
the enclosed diagram of the proposed sign, this would be a well-built, well-thought out structure
to match that of the Proctor Road entrance.
If I can answer any other questions, please contact me. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Nancy Clusiau, on behalf of the Lafayette Woods Subdivision Association
274-0626
;v
s i-fr. If
_ _ _ I el1trtl...t1u
I - - - S'Jn
, l
I
.\ \
.-- ~--\--
,...,
,...,
- - N88054'42/1E
-r ~ =-11
874.60 --
603./0
-r
~ ---~
~ -- -
,..-.. II - - - -
.r- -
- -
. .
1'" I ~, I A" ,'''-
I ~1!,. " :-i L_ /_\ :\~ t:
-T-T-T-
I
\
" \
~~ ..
,
\
I"'~
'(1
- - .. -
2/6.70
N8/o05'/8"[
-r-
I I
I I " -.-
~- I I I
" I
II
,
"" ~~
""
\
-,
\ ' ,
r\
'- ,
" \
53 tlf.
\6\. '39
6005
t-16
...-
t--
I
OUTLOT
c
VU;;;7 L......I "t~
yy
Lw :;:
~ Z
::- '+-
~ 0
~ Q)
a .~
~ -
+'
I gj
I ~
, ,:
I
,/
/
,/
co
N
0:::
n
n
f-
a a::j
(Q N
<C .
It") u
-. Q)
-. (/)
"<t
""
\
" \
"-
.... \ ~
.....
~ ~
( ~ ~
~,
,