04-11-2006 BA MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3.2. Consider Variance Request by Elk River Ford for Signage,Public Hearing-Case No.V 06- • 02 Mr.Harlicker stated the applicant is requesting a variance to the sign ordinance for three freestanding signs.The three existing signs are non-conforming according to current ordinance but are grandfathered in according to previous ordinances.The applicant would like to move two signs to a different location,remove a third sign and add a readerboard,but if they move or replace the signs a variance would be required as they would become non- conforming.Mr.Harlicker reviewed the five criteria that must be met for a variance and recommended denial because the applicant doesn't meet four of the criteria. Chair Lemke opened the public hearing. Steve Rohlf,Ford representative-Stated Ford is closing a major access from TH 10 into their site and signage is needed at the two entrances.He stated Ford is much more land intensive than the neighboring auto dealership.He stated Ford has multiple businesses onsite.He stated it is a hardship to adequately advertise all of their businesses on two freestanding signs.He stated if frontage on the newly combined lot was divided into individual lots for each business on their site,there would be twelve signs onsite.He stated the two freestanding entrance signs are needed for safety and to inform customers where the entrances are located. Commissioner Ropp stated signs are necessary at the entrances but did not believe one was necessary in the middle of the lot.He stated the applicant could put a sign on their building. Commissioner Offerman questioned why the readerboard couldn't be put on the building • and cited Northbound Liquor as an example. Mr.Rohlf stated this option was considered but was a safety issue due to the angle of the sign to traffic on Highway 10.He stated it is best to keep the readerboard perpendicular to the highway. Chair Lemke stated the sign ordinance recognizes there may be a hardship to having increased frontage and that's why it allows a site to have a second sign. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER FORD BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. LITERAL ENFORCEENT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP. THE APPLICANT CURRENTLY HAS 3 FREESTANDING SIGNS.THE SIGN FACE COULD BE CHANGED ON EACH SIGN WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE. BECAUSE ONE OF THE SIGNS IS BEING REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A NEW SIGN AND ANOTHER IS BEING RELOCATED,A VARIANCE IS NEEDED. THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT ALONG WITH THE TWO ALLOWABLE FREESTANDING SIGNS IS SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY THE DEALERSHIP. • 2. THERE IS NO HARDSHIP CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES,WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY