Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to Board of Adjustments/V 98-9 <br /> September 29, 1998 <br /> Page 3 <br /> • The applicant states they were unaware the retail center would block <br /> signage. The fact that the applicant did not foresee the impact the retail <br /> center would have on the visibility of their signage is a result of the <br /> applicant's inaction. However, this could be addressed by relocating one of <br /> the existing signs. <br /> Staff agrees with the applicant in that the granting of this variance would <br /> not affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of Elk River. <br /> Recommendation <br /> It is recommended the Board of Adjustment deny this variance request for a <br /> 4th wall sign based on the following findings: <br /> 1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will not cause undue hardship. The <br /> applicant could move one of the other signs to a location that is more <br /> visible from Highway 169. <br /> 2. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would not <br /> deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same <br /> district under the terms of this ordinance. Other businesses along <br /> • Highway 169 made a marketing decision to place one of their allowed <br /> signs so that it would be visible from Highway 169. <br /> 3. The special conditions and circumstances are a consequence of the <br /> petitioner's own action or inaction. The fact that the applicant did not <br /> foresee the impact the retail center would have on the visibility of their <br /> signage is a result of the applicant's inaction. However, this could be <br /> addressed by relocating one of the existing signs. <br /> • <br /> \\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\scott\v98-9.doc <br />