Loading...
11-10-2009 BOA MINMEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2009 Members Present: Chair Scott, Commissioners Anderson, Bell, Ives, Johnson, Lemke and Westberg Members Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Manager JeremyBarnhart, Planner Chris Leeseberg, Recording SecretaryDebbie Huebner 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 Scott. 2. Consider November 10, 2009 Board of Adjustments Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER BELL AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 10, 2009 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 3. Consider October 13.2009 Board of Adiustments Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER LEMKE AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTBERG TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 13, 2009, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4.1. Request by Tean Corrow 1721 5th Street for setback variance to allow overhang construction on existurg home Public Hearing -Case No V 09-08 Orris Leeseberg presented the staff report. The applicant proposes to add afive-foot roof and porch on the front of their home, which would encroach three feet into the required 30- foot front yard setback Mr. Leeseberg explained that porches may encroach six feet; eaves may encroach 2 feet. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed the five criteria for granting a variance. Staff recommends approval of the request. Chair Scott opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, Chair Scott closed the public hearing. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY JEAN CORROW FORA 3-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. ALL FIVE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE ARE MET. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: Board of Adjustments Minutes November 10, 2009 Page 2 1. NO PORTION OF THE ROOF/PORCH ADDITION SHALL EXTEND MORE THAN THREE (3) FEET INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 4.2. Request by Elk River Ford. 17219 Highway 10 for variance to allow signage Public Hearing - Case No. V 09-07 Mr. Barnhart stated that Elk River Ford has requested a variance to allow a fifth sign (92.5 sq. ft.) on their property. Elk River Ford has stated the additional sign is required in order for them to acquire a new franchise, Kia Mr. Barnhart reviewed this history of previous variances and a recent ordinance amendment, which have allowed Elk River Ford increased signage. He noted that all existing signs on the property meet the ordinance requirements. Mr. Barnhart reviewed the criteria for granting a variance. Staff recommends denial of the request based on the finding that the criteria cannot be met. Chair Scott opened the public hearing. Stephen Rohlf, representing Elk River Ford (applicant) -stated that the lot is unique and can accommodate an additional sign, since theyhave nearly one-half mile of total frontage. He stated that the five signs would be located in over one-quarter of a mile of Highway 10 frontage. He explained that if the propertywas divided into separate lots, there could potentially be eight signs in the same area. Mr. Rohif stated that they would be deprived of rights that other businesses have, since each franchise is a separate business and other businesses are allowed to have their own sign. Mr. Rohlf stated that if the sign variance is not approved, they cannot acquire the new franchise. He stated that he did not see a difference between Elk River Ford's request and the Corow variance that was just approved, since the variance met the criteria and would not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the city. He stated that the ordinance amendment did not go far enough to allow the additional sign without a variance. He stated that the variance is very important to the success of their business. There being no further comments, Chair Scott closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ives asked for clarification on the relationship between the amount of street frontage and the number of signs. Mr. Barnhart explained. Commssioner Lemke stated he was sympathetic to the applicant, but had a concern if the additional franchise was not acquired, the approval of the fifth sign would still stand. He asked if a condition could be added that the sign would not be allowed if the franchise acquisition did not take place. Mr. Barnhart stated that the sign could not be "taken away', but that a condition could be linked to satisfythe criteria for approval Commissioner Bell stated that the additional sign was not very large (92.5 square feet) and questioned howthe signage was evaluated. Mr. Barnhart stated that the applicant is conceding on the sign of the sign that could be allowed, and that could be used as a basis for approval bythe Commission. Commissioner Anderson stated that he did not like the idea of hinging a brand name to approval of a sign. He stated that if the sign is approved, it is there. He stated that he is not anti business, but he is concerned with the negative impact of having large numbers of signs Board of Adjustments Minutes November 10, 2009 Page 3 along the highway. He stated he had concerns with the changeable copy sign that is currently on the property. He stated that the cites ordinance is in place to m;n;m;~p the impacts of the multitude of signs. He did not feel this variance request could be compared to the overhang variance. He stated he did not feel the applicant was using the resources available currently, such as the changeable copysign. Commissioner Westberg stated that he could support the hardship factor. He stated that if the request were for 10 or 20 signs, he would have a concern. He stated he was sympathetic to the applicant and felt the unique nature of the business is an element for hardship. Chair Scott stated that he voted for denial of the previous variances which were approved. He suggested that the applicant "swap out" the reader board sign for the franchise sign he was requesting. Mr. Rohlf stated that was a decision the owner would have to make. He stated that theywon't get the franchise if they don't get the sign. Chair Scott stated that the distances between the existing signs are acceptable, and if the reader board was used for the new franchise, there would be one sign for each business. Mr. Rohlf explained that the reader board is used for advertising community events, in addition to advertising their business. Commissioner Bell stated that with the changing economy, he has observed more and more dealerships selling more than one brand of vehicles, therefore, requiring more signs. He stated he was leaning toward approval of the request. Commissioner Lemke stated that if the variance was approved and the applicant didn't get the franchise, they could put up another sign, such as Ford trucks, etc. Mr. Rohlf stated he was willing to state on record that if they don't' get the franchise, there would be no sign. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt the applicant has enough signs to meet their needs. MOTION BY ANDERSON TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER FORD FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIGN BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE PROPERTY ALREADY HAS ADEQUATE SIGNAGE. 2. AN ADDITIONAL SIGN WOULD BE A DETRIMENT TO THE CITY The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION BY WESTBERG, SECONDED BY BELL TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER FORD, CASE NO. V 09-07, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE REQUEST MEETS SUFFICIENT CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE. MOTION CARRIED 4-3. Chair Scott and Commissioners Anderson and Johnson opposed. 6. Adjournment There being no further business, Commissioner Westberg moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m Minutes prepared by Debbie Huebner. Board of Adjustments Minutes November 10, 2009 .~ i' ~ ~~ ~, Tina Allard, City Clerk r- Kev~ Scott, Board of Adjustments Chair Page 4