Laserfiche WebLink
Board of Adjustments Minutes <br />November 10, 2009 <br />Page 2 <br />1. NO PORTION OF THE ROOF/PORCH ADDITION SHALL EXTEND <br />MORE THAN THREE (3) FEET INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD <br />SETBACK. <br />MOTION CARRIED 7-0. <br />4.2. Request by Elk River Ford. 17219 Highway 10 for variance to allow signage Public Hearing <br />- Case No. V 09-07 <br />Mr. Barnhart stated that Elk River Ford has requested a variance to allow a fifth sign (92.5 <br />sq. ft.) on their property. Elk River Ford has stated the additional sign is required in order <br />for them to acquire a new franchise, Kia Mr. Barnhart reviewed this history of previous <br />variances and a recent ordinance amendment, which have allowed Elk River Ford increased <br />signage. He noted that all existing signs on the property meet the ordinance requirements. <br />Mr. Barnhart reviewed the criteria for granting a variance. Staff recommends denial of the <br />request based on the finding that the criteria cannot be met. <br />Chair Scott opened the public hearing. <br />Stephen Rohlf, representing Elk River Ford (applicant) -stated that the lot is unique <br />and can accommodate an additional sign, since theyhave nearly one-half mile of total <br />frontage. He stated that the five signs would be located in over one-quarter of a mile of <br />Highway 10 frontage. He explained that if the propertywas divided into separate lots, there <br />could potentially be eight signs in the same area. Mr. Rohif stated that they would be <br />deprived of rights that other businesses have, since each franchise is a separate business and <br />other businesses are allowed to have their own sign. Mr. Rohlf stated that if the sign <br />variance is not approved, they cannot acquire the new franchise. He stated that he did not <br />see a difference between Elk River Ford's request and the Corow variance that was just <br />approved, since the variance met the criteria and would not adversely affect the health, safety <br />and welfare of the city. He stated that the ordinance amendment did not go far enough to <br />allow the additional sign without a variance. He stated that the variance is very important to <br />the success of their business. <br />There being no further comments, Chair Scott closed the public hearing. <br />Commissioner Ives asked for clarification on the relationship between the amount of street <br />frontage and the number of signs. Mr. Barnhart explained. <br />Commssioner Lemke stated he was sympathetic to the applicant, but had a concern if the <br />additional franchise was not acquired, the approval of the fifth sign would still stand. He <br />asked if a condition could be added that the sign would not be allowed if the franchise <br />acquisition did not take place. Mr. Barnhart stated that the sign could not be "taken away', <br />but that a condition could be linked to satisfythe criteria for approval <br />Commissioner Bell stated that the additional sign was not very large (92.5 square feet) and <br />questioned howthe signage was evaluated. Mr. Barnhart stated that the applicant is <br />conceding on the sign of the sign that could be allowed, and that could be used as a basis for <br />approval bythe Commission. <br />Commissioner Anderson stated that he did not like the idea of hinging a brand name to <br />approval of a sign. He stated that if the sign is approved, it is there. He stated that he is not <br />anti business, but he is concerned with the negative impact of having large numbers of signs <br />