Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustments Minutes Page 2 <br />September 24, 2019 <br />----------------------------- <br /> Mr. Leeseberg stated the current sign would be removed. <br /> <br /> Commissioner Beise asked about the sign dimensions and whether or not it’s <br /> considered one sided or two sided. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated if a sign is constructed so that the faces are not back to back, <br />the angles shall not exceed ten degrees. If the angle is greater than ten degrees, the <br />total areas of both sides are added together. <br /> <br />Commissioner Rydberg asked if the Board of Adjustments denies the applicant’s <br /> request, would the church still be able to update their current sign on the vacant <br /> parcel. <br /> <br /> Mr. Leeseberg said the applicant would be allowed to update the sign keeping the <br /> size and dimensions the same as the current sign. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />th <br />Lea Raduenz, 1837 8 St. NW, stated she isn’t against the applicant’s request for a <br />new sign but expressed concerns with the church trimming the bushes in the <br />MnDOT right-of-way that had once shielded her view of the current sign and traffic <br />lights from US Highway 10. <br /> <br />Matt Daiker, the applicant, stated the bushes Ms. Raduenz was referring to were <br />trimmed at 8 feet and the church would continue to keep them at 8 feet. He stated <br />the new sign will not be lit. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated Zack Carlton has been in contact with Mark Renn with <br />MnDOT regarding the trimming of the bushes. <br /> <br />There being no one else to speak, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Moved by Commissioner Beise and seconded by Commissioner Jordan to <br />approve a variance request by Elk River Baptist Church for two freestanding <br />signs and a total of 120 square feet of freestanding signage for the following <br />reasons: <br />1. The general purpose and intent of the ordinance is met. <br />2. The property has a land use o residential and the use is consistent <br />with the Comprehensive Plan. <br />3. The proposed use is reasonable and is permitted in the zoning <br />ordinance. <br />4. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the <br />property not a consequence of the petitioner’s own action or <br />inaction. <br />5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> <br />Motion carried 6-0. <br /> <br />