Laserfiche WebLink
• MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS <br /> HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL <br /> TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2000 <br /> Members Present: Chair Mesich, Commissioners Baker, Chambers, Kuester, Morphew, <br /> Pederson. Commissioner Schuster arrived at approximately 6:45 <br /> p.m. <br /> Members Absent: None <br /> Staff Present: Michele McPherson, Director of Planning; Scott Harlicker, Senior <br /> Planner; Stephen Wensman, Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording <br /> Secretary <br /> 1. Call Meeting To Order <br /> Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Board of <br /> Adjustments was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Mesich. <br /> 2. Consider 6/27/00 Board of Adjustments Agenda <br /> COMMISSIONER CHAMBERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 27, 2000, BOARD OF <br /> ADJUSTMENTS AGENDA. COMMISSIONER MORPHEW SECONDED THE MOTION. THE <br /> • MOTION CARRIED 6-0. <br /> 3. Request by Ridgewood Homeowner's Association for sign setback variance, <br /> Public Hearing-Case No. V 00-2 <br /> Ridgewood Homeowner's Association has requested a variance to reduce the <br /> required sign setback from a property line from 10 feet to zero feet in order to <br /> reinstall the Ridgewood development sign. Ms. McPherson explained that a sign <br /> was originally installed without a permit and on the property line which was <br /> knocked down by a car in the winter of 1999. Staff recommended approval of <br /> the variance, citing the findings listed in the staff report, and added a condition <br /> that an easement for the sign be obtained from the property owner. <br /> Commissioner Baker asked if the sign would be in the same location. Ms. <br /> McPherson stated that it would be. <br /> Commissioner Chambers asked if the sign would be changed. Ms. McPherson <br /> stated that it would be the same sign which was up previously. <br /> Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the <br /> public, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. <br /> Chair Mesich stated that he did not feel the finding could be met regarding <br /> depriving the applicant of rights enjoyed by others, since the other development <br /> sign referred to does meet the city's setback requirements. Also, he felt there <br /> • were no special conditions since there are other monument style signs in the <br /> neighborhood which likely required removal of the vegetation to maintain. He <br />