09-27-2016 BA MIN 44 '
hifk ^%---
Meeting of the Elk River Board of Adjustments
River Held at the Elk River City Hall
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Members Present: Chair Eric Johnson, Commissioners Andrew Crook,Alexander Feinstein,
Jill Larson-Vito and Brad Thiel
Members Absent: Commissioners Mark Konietzko and Mike Nicholas
Staff Present: Planning Manager Zack Carlton, Planner BrieAnna Simon and Sr.
Administrative Assistant Debbie Huebner
Also Present: Councilmember Barb Burandt, Council Liaison
I. 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 Johnson.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
3. Consider September 27, 2016, Agenda
Moved by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Feinstein to
approve the September 27,2016, Board of Adjustments agenda. Motion carried 5-0.
4.1 Glen Brown — 604 5th Street NW
Variance to Driveway Width and setback regulations, Case No. V 16-08
Zack Carlton presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the drivewa y width
variance request and denial of the zero foot setback variance,based on the findings listed in
the staff report.
Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, Chair Johnson
closed the public hearing.
The Board of Adjustments reviewed the five criteria for the driveway width variance request
as follows:
1. Is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance.
Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2
September 27,2016
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Thiel that
the request meets Criteria #1. Motion carried 5-0.
2. Is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan.
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Feinstein
that the request meets Criteria#2. Motion carried 5-0.
3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
zoning ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Thiel that
the request meets Criteria#3. Motion carried 5-0.
4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a
consequence of the petition's own action or inaction.
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Thiel that
the request meets Criteria#4. Motion carried 5-0.
5. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Thiel that
the request meets Criteria #5. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Thiel to
approve the request Glen Brown for a driveway width variance, Case No.V 16-08,
based on the finding that all five criteria can be met, and the following reasons:
1. The general purpose and intent of the ordinance are met if the driveway is limited
to 40 feet wide.
2. The property has a land use of residential and the use is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
3. The proposed use on the property,while adhering to setbacks,would be used in
a reasonable manner and is permitted in the zoning ordinance.
4. The existing driveway is a legal non-conforming driveway that will move closer to
compliance with a variance. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances
unique to the property not a consequence of the petitioners own action or
inaction.
5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
and,with the following conditions:
1. The driveway shall not exceed 40 feet in width anywhere along its length and
shall be setback at least 5 feet from the property lines.
2. Turf shall be established for the five feet of property between the west edge of the
driveway and the property line.
Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 3
September 27,2016
3. The applicant will be responsible for all p ermits and incurred costs for the
demolition and construction of the curbing.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Board of Adjustments reviewed the five criteria for the driveway width variance request
as follows:
1. Is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Thiel that
the request does not meet Criteria#1. Motion carried 5-0.
2. Is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan.
Motion by Commissioner Thiel and seconded by Commissioner Feinstein that
the request meets Criteria#2. Motion carried 5-0.
3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
zoning ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Crook
that the request does not meet Criteria#3. Motion carried 5-0.
4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a
consequence of the petition's own action or inaction.
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Feinstein
that the request does not meet Criteria#4. Motion carried 5-0.
5. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Thiel that
the request does not meet Criteria#5. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Thiel to deny
the request by Glen Brown for a driveway setback variance, Case No.V 16-08,based
on the finding that criteria 1,3,4 and 5 cannot be met. Motion carried 5-0.
4.2 Vanman on behalf of Gateway Church — 13913 185t Avenue NW
• Variance to the structure height limit and variance for additional free standing sign,
Case No. V 16-10
The staff report was presented by BrieAnna Simon. Staff recommended denial of both
variance requests, citing reasons listed in the staff report.
Chair Johnson opened the public hearing.
Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 4
September 27,2016
H Jack Holmes, 830 Fawn Rd. Elk River, representing Vanman/Gateway Church—May 20
told by Ms. Simon, according to City Land Use Regulations, 30-852, Item B,religious
symbols are not defined as a sign. Based on that information, they went ahead to develop
architectural and structural drawings,which were submitted to the building department for
approval. He stated they were informed the application had been sent back to Planning. On
August 22,2016, they were told that they would need to apply for a variance,which was
submitted on August 29, 2016. He stated his question was at what point does a cross not
become a religious symbol. He stated that is the structure proposed is not a sign, as there is
nothing on it other than the cross. He stated he has completed six church projects in the
City of Elk River over the years, and questioned why this cross is different than others they
installed at other churches, for example, Central Lutheran has a lighted cross,and St.
Andrew's has a lighted sign,which is much taller than this one. He asked why this is
considered a sign and not a religious symbol.
Chair Johnson stated that the symbol is not the issue,but rather,the height of the structure.
Chair Johnson asked if the other crosses were freestanding. Mr. Holmes stated no, they are
attached to the church. Mr. Holmes asked if the cross would be allowed if it were attached
to the church. Chair Johnson asked staff if the cross were attached to the building,would it
be allowed.
Mr. Carlton stated the ordinance prohibits roof signs. He explained that if the cross were
attached to the wall and did not exceed the height of the roof,it would be permitted. Mr.
Holmes stated they could attach the structure to the building. Mr. Carlton stated that the
height limit would still be a maximum of 40 feet. Chair Johnson stated they would still need
a variance.
Mr. Holmes stated that he feels they were given wrong information which sent them in a
wrong direction, and asked if there is a different direction that the applicant could have
gone,instead of the Board of Adjustments just denying it. Chair Johnson stated that the
sign could be resized to meet the ordinance. Chair Johnson stated there are two issues;an
additional freestanding sign,regardless of what is on it,and the height. Mr. Holmes stated
that according to the ordinance it is not a sign,it is a religious symbol,and when would a
religious symbol become a sign. Chair Johnson stated yes,he feels it is a sign.
Commissioner Larson-Vito asked if there is a clear definition of religious symbol in the
ordinance. Ms. Simon noted that the ordinance states the city cannot regulate the copy or
message,or religious symbols. She stated that they are not looking at the content,which is
not regulated by staff for any signs throughout the city,but the structure as a whole.
There being no further public comment, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing.
The Board of Adjustments reviewed the five criteria for the driveway width variance request
as follows:
1. Is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Feinstein and seconded by Commissioner Larson-
Vito that the request does not meet Criteria#1. Motion carried 5-0.
Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 5
September 27,2016
2. Is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan.
Motion by Commissioner Crook and seconded by Commissioner Thiel that
the request meet does not meet Criteria #2. Motion carried 5-0.
3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by
the zoning ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Feinstein and seconded by Commissioner Thiel
that the request does not meet Criteria #3. Motion carried 5-0.
4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a
consequence of the petition's own action or inaction.
Motion by Commissioner Crook and seconded by Commissioner Larson-Vito
that the request does not meet Criteria#4. Motion carried 5-0.
5. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Motion by Commissioner Thiel and seconded by Commissioner Feinstein
that the request does not meet Criteria#5. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Crook to
deny the request by Vanman on behalf of Gateway church for a second freestanding
sign, Case No. V 16-10,based on the finding that the five criteria cannot be met.
Motion carried 5-0.
The Board of Adjustments reviewed the five criteria for the additional sign height variance
request as follows:
1. Is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Crook and seconded by Commissioner Larson-Vito
that the request does not meet Criteria#1. Motion carried 5-0.
2. Is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan.
Motion by Commissioner Crook and seconded by Commissioner Thiel that the
request meet does not meet Criteria#2. Motion carried 5-0.
3. The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
zoning ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Feinstein and seconded by Commissioner Larson-Vito
that the request does not meet Criteria #3. Motion carried 5-0.
Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 6
September 27,2016
4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a
consequence of the petition's own action or inaction.
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Crook
that the request does not meet Criteria#4. Motion carried 5-0.
5. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Motion by Commissioner Crook and seconded by Commissioner Thiel that the
request does not meet Criteria#5. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion by Commissioner Larson-Vito and seconded by Commissioner Crook to
deny the request by Vanman on behalf of Gateway church for an additional sign
height, Case No.V 16-10,based on the finding that the five criteria cannot be met.
Motion carried 5-0.
6. General Business—There was no general business.
7. Announcements -None
8. Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Eric Johnson adjourned the meeting of the Elk River
Board of Adjustments at 7:03 p.m.
Minutes prepared by Debbie Huebner.
Eric Johnson Tina Allard
Planning Commission Chair City Clerk