Loading...
5.5 PCSR 07-26-1994 \%'4 / •ty of AGENDA ITEM 5.5 Elk River MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: TROY LANGER, PLANNING INTERN 1,. DATE: JULY 26, 1994 SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST BY RIVERVIEW SPORTS, PUBLIC HEARING, CASE NO. V 94-08 REQUEST The applicant has submitted an application for a variance from the City Code sign setback and sign size requirements. LOCATION • 17445 Highway 10, Elk River, MN ZONING / LAND USE C3 (Highway Commercial) / HB (Highway Business) ATTACHMENTS Location Map, Zoning Map, Site Map, Letter From Mr. Lundquist, Proposed Sign INTRODUCTION The variance request would allow the proposed sign to exceed City Sign Code requirements by twenty (20) square feet. According to current City Sign Code requirements in a C-3 zoning district, a lot along a highway with speeds at or above fifty-five (55) miles per hour (m.p.h.) may have a sign that is one hundred fifty (150) square feet. The applicant is requesting to remove an existing sign that meets City Code and replace it with a proposed sign that would be one hundred seventy (170) square feet. 0 P.O. Box 490 • 13065 Orono Parkway • Elk River, MN 55330 • (612) 441-7420 • Fax: (612) 441-7425 Riverview Sports Page 2 July 26, 1994 III The variance request would also allow the proposed sign to exceed City Code Setback requirements of ten (10) feet from any public right-of-way. The current sign is located approximately two (2) feet from the right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to locate the new sign in the same area. Because the applicant is proposing to remove the current sign and replace it with the proposed sign, it requires a the sign to meet current City Code requirements. When a non-conforming use is completely removed and replace, it must meet current standards. An eight (8) foot variance is required from the setback requirements to allow the proposed sign to be two (2) feet from the right-of- way. VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS According to City Code, in order for a variance to be granted, five (5) items must be found: 1) That the literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue (unnecessary, unavoidable, extreme) hardship. 2) The hardship caused by special conditions and circumstances ID which are peculiar to the land and structure involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to other lands or structures in the same district. 3) 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. 4) The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction. 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 wherein the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. According to the State Statutes, (Section 462.357 Subd. 6. (2) pg. 851) "Undue Hardship" on a property is defined as " ...the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls, plight of the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone • shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance." lundquis.troy Riverview Sports Page 3 July 26, 1994 • APPLICANT'S REASON'S FOR VARIANCE REQUEST The petitioner has addressed several reasons for the granting of a variance from the sign setback and sign size requirements. Obstruction of view from the construction of a new wall by Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is one reason outlined by Mr. Lundquist. In addition to this wall, the applicant states that MnDOT will also be placing a fence on top of the wall. The applicant states that because of the construction of the wall, fence, and the topography of the land create unique circumstances for that particular location. Because the property is located at a higher elevation it becomes increasingly difficult for traffic to locate Riverview Sports. The applicant also addresses that because of an additional frontage road, the sign is located further away from Highway 10 than other areas located along Highway 10. These are the primary reasons given in the letter by the applicant that state the reasons for the granting of a variance from size and setback requirements. • ANALYSIS In review of a variance request, staff considers the above mentioned points before making a recommendation. The applicant has submitted a proposal for a sign and is requesting to locate the sign in the same location as the current sign. In order to use the proposed sign the applicant must receive approval of a variance. If the applicant does not receive approval of the variance request, they may still use the existing sign located on the property. The first point addresses whether literal enforcement of the code creates an undue hardship on the property. The applicant argues that similar businesses in the northern metro display more signage and special requirements are set by Suzuki as to the size and style of sign that can be displayed. The applicant also argues that moving the sign back would block an existing driveway. After viewing the proposed sign and examining whether moving the sign back eliminates the use of the driveway, staff believes there is adequate room for the sign to meet setback requirements and still maintain use of the driveway area. The second point addresses whether the hardship is caused by special conditions that are unique to the land. The applicant argues that because a new wall and fence are being created, literal application of the ordinance • would cause a hardship. According to Wayne Hillstrom, MnDOT Project Engineer, the above mentioned wall would be twenty-eight (28) inches above lundquis.troy Riverview Sports Page 4 July 26, 1994 • the original grade and the fence, which is a chain-link design, would be thirty-two (32) inches above the wall. This amounts to a total of sixty (60) inches or five (5) feet above the original grade before construction of the wall began. Staff is unclear to the amount of view which is lost from the highway because of the wall and fence. The third point addresses whether literal application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by others. The applicant argues that because of the location of their property it becomes more difficult for potential customers to view the location of Riverview Sports. The ability to place the sign closer to the setback and increasing the size of the sign would increase visibility. Staff can not use economic considerations alone when considering a to constitute a hardship. After visiting the area, staff noticed that there are other commercial properties located in the same general area as Riverview Sports. If a variance is granted for this proposal, other requests may appear from those businesses and similar responses may be required. The fourth point addresses whether the special circumstances are not a consequence of the applicants actions. The applicant argues that MnDOT is creating the special circumstance by building a wall and fence that obstructs Illview toward Riverview Sports. Staff would agree that the applicant is not responsible for the actions taken place involving the wall and fence issue. The applicant also argues that the proposed sign can not be moved back because it would block an existing driveway area. After visiting the site, staff noticed that several boats were being parked in and around the sign location. Moving the proposed sign back eight (8) feet to meet City Code requirements would not block the driveway area. Boats were being parked near the driveway area and create more of a obstruction than the proposed sign. The last point addresses whether or not the variance will affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the City. The applicant argues that there has been an existing sign in that location and nobody has ever complained about the location of the sign. The applicant also argues that the square footage of the sign in not unreasonable because other businesses in nearby communities have larger signs. Staff would agree that the proposed sign because of its size and location does not appear to affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the City. Whenever staff considers a variance request, staff must consider whether or not precedence will be set by the actions taken. If a variance is granted from • the City Code requirements, will this set precedence for future applicants? In relation to this particular request, staff anticipates that similar requests may lundquis.troy Riverview Sports Page 5 July 26, 1994 • be presented in the future. If this request is granted it may set precedence for the future. RECOMMENDATION On the issue related to the variance request from the City Sign setback requirement, staff recommends denial based on the following reasons: 1) The literal enforcement and application of the City Code does not create an hardship on the applicant. It appears to staff that the sign could be moved back eight (8) feet without any significant alterations or hardship created in relation to the operation of the business. 2) In reference to the proposed sign restricting vehicular traffic, it appears to staff that the special circumstances are being created by the applicant. The applicant appears to be using part of the driveway area and parking area during the day to sell boats. Moving the sign back to meet code requirements does not appear to block traffic. There is approximately forty (40) to fifty (50) • feet between from where the setback allows the sign to be located and the building. This appears to staff to be sufficient area for semi-trucks to operate. 3) City Code allows for a maximum height of thirty-five (35) in a C-3 zoning district. The proposed sign is twenty-three (23) feet in height. If view is limited due to a wall and fence, the applicant is able to increase the height of the sign for better visibility. 4) If the variance is not granted, the applicant may still use an existing sign located on the property. On the issue related to the variance request from the City Code requirements on sign size, staff recommends denial of the variance request based on the following conditions: 1) Literal enforcement and application of the ordinance would not create a hardship or deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by others. Other commercial property exists along similar frontage roads located beside Highway 10 and Highway 169 that require • additional setback from the highway. Staff does not perceive lundquis.troy Riverview Sports Page 6 July 26, 1994 • that if additional square footage is not granted it would deprive the applicant or create a hardship. 2) The proposed sign appears to have sections that could possibly be removed that would allow the sign to meet current City Code requirements. 3) Additional signage is available on the wall of the building, City Code allows almost three-hundred (300) feet of wall signage for that particular lot. If applicant feels a need for additional signage, wall signage would be available. 4) If the variance is not granted, the applicant may still use an existing sign located on the property. • • lundquis.troy • 1011111%41 6/10/94 MRR 11:11)1C) 14' )11 iv:1%4111\ 7 ri 7 V:1W io:z1 SPORTS I MARINE 10911 7' 11111/t1 4. v. SAL , J,3 • SE It ll< IF• PA itFS CD DEALER BOAT/MOTOR/TRAILER DEALER LOGO PANELS WATER READY LOGO PANELS 3' -< BY CUSTOMERBY CUSTOMER $ 4995.00 0 b- 0 c z • E ZUZUKE 3' ° M -0 - - — 12' P min 10' Riverview Sports & Marine Attn: Chad Lundquist 441-1799 174,15 Hwy 10 Elk River, MN 55330 co (0 11 1 0 D/F ILLUMINATED ID. SIGN/ READERBOARD • • • o • • • • As owner of Riverview Sports, I am asking that a variance be granted for the size and location of the proposed business sign under consideration. My request is for a 170 square foot sign to be erected in approximately the same location as the existing sign. If the sign size is decreased or if the sign has to be set back from the property line, it will lose it's visual effectiveness and cause other problems with my business traffic flow. The sign company designed the proposed sign with limitations in mind. The designer felt that the size and site would be the minimum needed for an adequate readable display. There is very limited visibility for traffic approaching from the north and west. The view is obstructed by other business buildings and by the new concrete wall that's being put up by the Minnesota Highway Department. Signs already existing at businesses southeast of Riverview are almost on the highway; they have the added advantage of being level with the highway. The distance factor to Riverview Sports is increased by the higher elevation and the footage of an additional service road. If the sign is put up on the proposed site, it should be readable to passing traffic. If it is moved back farther • from the highway, or made smaller, it will not be effective. Also, if the sign were to be moved back, it would be located in my existing driveway. That area needs to remain unblocked in order to provide an adequate turnaround space for cars and trucks pulling trailers, and for semis. The parking area would also be decreased. The existing sign poles for my business are located on the most strategic spot on my property. I would like to keep a sign on that same spot. The new sign would be attractive. It would be lower and therefore safer than the existing poles. The sign at the present location would not obscure other businesses. Since the service road in front of the business comes to a dead end, it carries a very limited amount of traffic. Erecting a new sign on the same location as the old one should not be detrimental to the service road traffic. The square footage of the sign is not unreasonable. Several businesses similar to mine in the northern metro area have very large signs and display more individual product signs and logos. I have tried to keep my sign simple and uncluttered. The Suzuki portion of the sign is required by Suzuki; that corporation sets the sign style and size that I have to display. • • • • There are a lot of local people who still don't know that my business exists. I want to make a sizable investment in a good sign to help remedy this situation and pull business off the highway, but I need this variance to make the investment worthwhile. Thank you for your consideration. Les Lundquist Owner, Riverview Sports 17445 Hwy. 10 Elk River, MN 55330 • • 1 LOCATION MAP Ver P.O. Box 490.13065 Orono Parkway • Elk River, MN 55;;0 • (6») 44i-7al' 'J 1/,'4111, 4 If ob' _ 'e RIVERVIEW SPORTS s \ ( f+'"� \ Rt4i wo ins/ A `Parcel 2 A /sz Z4 0 LOCATION OF,:XISTING AND PROPOSEDE SIGN 0 f � 1 Parcel 2B 10 44 00 14 r Fi GHWAV 10 s °n 07. o\ , ^,G5 y a3 1\'> Nf1':7%0 E�,� Ju. oo `��.. l.n }. PSP"] SITE MAP ver CASs V 94.08 r ePr P.O. Box 490 • 13065 Orono Parkkwav • E'.k Rive ,,,fu ;--n . ri- ,. , -,^n Ie