5.5. SR 06-16-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case File: V 08-06 Page 2 Elk River Ford Area Identification sign variance 3. The .r~ecial conditions and circumstances are not a consequence o the~etitioner'.r own action or inaction. There are no special conditions identified that suggest a variance is warranted. The applicant is arguing that the removal of the entrances off of 10 justify and require the variance. The closure of the access was the applicants own action, not required by the State. This appears to be in direct conflict with this provision. 4. The literal a~lication of the ~irovisions of this ordinance would de~irive the~etitioner of rights enzoyed by other 1~ro~erties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. The literal application of the ordinance allows an area identification sign. The area, not defined by the ordinance, is identified by the applicant as this lot. There are other signs options available to the applicant (and other parcels) for the signage. The applicant is not unfairly treated with regard to the application of the ordinance. 5. The variance aarill not be injurious to or adversel~a, feet the health, safety or we~are of the residents o the cit~r the neighborhood where th~ro~erty is located and will be in keening aarith snirit and intent o~the ordinance. As the signs are not visible from a single vantage point, it has not been demonstrated that the signage will be injurious or adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the City. Board of Adjustment Discussion At their meeting on June 10, 2008, the Board of Adjustments denied a variance requested by Scott Powell to allow a second area identification sign where one in permitted. The Board's vote was 4-3. The majority felt that although a case could be made for one or two of the conditions of approval, all standards for variance have not been met, notably, evidence of hardship has not been demonstrated, no rights are restricted, nor do any special conditions exist that require a variance. Public Comment Steve Rohlf, speaking on behalf of the applicant, demonstrated, in his opinion, the standards addressed: 1) Hardship is due to the safety issue. Customers do not know where to turn off Highway 10, causing hesitation and potential for an accident. Also, customers do not know there is a carwash and the business is lost. 2) The special circumstances are that the entrances are one-quarter mile apart, and they have multiple businesses in a campus setting. 3) Special conditions are that there Highway 10 access was given up voluntarily for safety reasons. 4) Separate businesses are allowed individual signs. If the property were subdivided and sold as individual businesses, there could potentially have been 20 signs. 5) Approval of the additional sign would not have any impact on health, safety, or welfare of residents in the city. S:\PLANNING Mt3IN\Case Files\Variance\V 08-0( Scott Powell\CC staff report Powell G-I(-08.doc