02-20-1990 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 1990 Page 2 e 5. Variance Re~ardin~ Si~na~e by Elk River Americinn/P.H. The applicants were present and provided the background information for this issue. Rob VanValkenberg showed a slide presentation on signage in the surrounding area. Mr. VanValkenburg also showed a video presentation where a boom truck was used to identify the height of signage that would give them the correct visibility from Highway 10 and 101. Mike Leary, Executive Vice President of Elk River Motel Properties, Inc., stated the reason for requesting this variance is to gain visibility, to be readable enough to travelers looking for lodging, and also to be exposed to the higher volume of traffic. Mr. Leary indicated that the height restriction does not allow visibility from Highway 101 because of the height of trees aloQg the Mississippi River. He also explained that the Scenic Rivers Act limits the cutting and trimming of trees. Therefore, they are seeking a variance to erect an adequately sized sign which will fit in with the natural landscaping along the river and intersection. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. It Rodney L. Lindquist, President of Americinn International, felt that the applicant met the criteria for all five standards for granting a variance as this is an economic hardship for the applicants because of the DNR regulations. Chairman Kimball stated that there must be a hardship that is not solely economic in order to grant a variance. Robert Bischoff indicated he had submitted a letter from Michael J. Majkrzak who was in favor of the request and would like this to be part of the public record. Terry Lee Douglas questioned whether the 5 standards for granting a variance is a State criteria and not a City regulation. Tim Keane, City Attorney, indicated that this is a State criteria to assure that the integrity of the ordinance is met and that there is consistency. Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. e Commissioner Johnson indicated we also have to consider that there are adjacent properties with retail establishments which may also require a variance. Commissioner Johnson further indicated we have to think in these terms as well, and not only of other motels. We have to think about other properties in that district which would be restricted by the ordinance as well. Tim Keane was in agreement indicating that every property owner on either side of the river does have a shore line vegetation screening the eye level view of their property across the river. They would have legitimate arguments, they need the same variance for the same area to accomplish the same objectives. Commissioner Schroeder indicated that there has been a lot of discussion on signage, sign heights, and special conditions and not just specific to the applicant's location. The ordinance has been