Resolution 99-81 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Lake Elmo Washington County, Minnesota Resolution No. PZ 99 -81 A RESOLUTION REGARDING ZONING VARIANCES William Hagberg, Ragberg's Country Market WHEREAS, The Lake Elmo Planning Commission has reviewed and heard testimony regarding the application of William Hagberg, to vary from the standards of Section 535, Sign Standards for .Height, Area, and Setback of Exterior Signs of the Lake Elmo City Code with respect to the property described as follows: 11325 Stillwater Blvd. WHEREAS, said variances are described by the application as follows: 1. To permit construction of a new monument sign of 130 square feet area versus the Section 535 maximum of 30 square feet, at a height of 24.4 feet height versus the Section 535 maximum of 6 feet, and canopy legends totaling 40 square feet. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lake Elmo Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings concerning said variance: 1. There exist multiple tenant use characteristics of this site that differentiate the site and signage requirements from other sites in the GB zoning district south of State Highway 5. 2. Other petroleum retailers within the same roadway corridor and zoning district enjoy signage in excess of GB signage standards. To deny similar privilege to the applicant would deprive the applicant of equal rights. 3. The special circumstances supporting the variance request are, in part, related to decisions by the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding speeds permitted on State Highway 5, adjacent to the site. 4. Under the circumstances of the site and site structure occupancy, the variances, when modified as recommended by the November 4, 1999 Planning Staff Report, will not constitute a special. privilege to the applicant not enjoyed by other property owners in similar circumstances. 5. As modified as recommended in the aforementioned Planning Staff Report, the variances are the minimum. necessary to reasonably address the hardship. 6. The purposes of the sign ordinance will not be materially negated to a greater extent than by previously approved sign variances under similar locational circumstances.