11-10-2009 BOA MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustments Minutes November 10, 2009 Page 3 along the highway. He stated he had concerns with the changeable copy sign that is currently on the property. He stated that the cites ordinance is in place to m;n;m;~p the impacts of the multitude of signs. He did not feel this variance request could be compared to the overhang variance. He stated he did not feel the applicant was using the resources available currently, such as the changeable copysign. Commissioner Westberg stated that he could support the hardship factor. He stated that if the request were for 10 or 20 signs, he would have a concern. He stated he was sympathetic to the applicant and felt the unique nature of the business is an element for hardship. Chair Scott stated that he voted for denial of the previous variances which were approved. He suggested that the applicant "swap out" the reader board sign for the franchise sign he was requesting. Mr. Rohlf stated that was a decision the owner would have to make. He stated that theywon't get the franchise if they don't get the sign. Chair Scott stated that the distances between the existing signs are acceptable, and if the reader board was used for the new franchise, there would be one sign for each business. Mr. Rohlf explained that the reader board is used for advertising community events, in addition to advertising their business. Commissioner Bell stated that with the changing economy, he has observed more and more dealerships selling more than one brand of vehicles, therefore, requiring more signs. He stated he was leaning toward approval of the request. Commissioner Lemke stated that if the variance was approved and the applicant didn't get the franchise, they could put up another sign, such as Ford trucks, etc. Mr. Rohlf stated he was willing to state on record that if they don't' get the franchise, there would be no sign. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt the applicant has enough signs to meet their needs. MOTION BY ANDERSON TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER FORD FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIGN BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE PROPERTY ALREADY HAS ADEQUATE SIGNAGE. 2. AN ADDITIONAL SIGN WOULD BE A DETRIMENT TO THE CITY The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION BY WESTBERG, SECONDED BY BELL TO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BY ELK RIVER FORD, CASE NO. V 09-07, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE REQUEST MEETS SUFFICIENT CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE. MOTION CARRIED 4-3. Chair Scott and Commissioners Anderson and Johnson opposed. 6. Adjournment There being no further business, Commissioner Westberg moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m Minutes prepared by Debbie Huebner.