My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1 PCSR 01-08-2013
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2011-2020
>
2013
>
01-08-2013
>
4.1 PCSR 01-08-2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/4/2013 1:10:24 PM
Creation date
1/4/2013 3:19:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCSR
date
1/8/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2) The variance is consistent with the City of Elk River comprehensive plan <br /> The comprehensive plan shows the property in question as Highway Business and it has <br /> been zoned Highway Commercial. We are proposing a highway commercial business <br /> that needs highway visibility to be successful. The comprehensive plan doesn't <br /> guarantee the success of a business, but nor would it anticipate the failure of a business <br /> due a minor variation of the ordinances that are meant to implement that plan. The <br /> signage variance will give this business the highway visibility it needs. <br /> 3) The petitioner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the <br /> zoning ordinance <br /> Our proposed use of this building makes sense with the area and it has a clear sightline to <br /> the highway, it just needs slightly larger signage than permitted to be seen. Due to the <br /> large set back from Highway 10, which is the proposed business's traffic generator, it <br /> seems reasonable to have signage that is large enough to be read from this roadway. In <br /> addition, staff will probably view this building as one business,but both the car wash and <br /> the oil change facility need to be advertised to be successful. It could be argued that they <br /> should both be allowed 200 square feet of wall signage. <br /> 4) The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the property not a <br /> consequence of the petitioner's own action or inaction <br /> We could add a freestanding sign, but does that make any more sense than placing the <br /> sign on the building. We could also remove the existing wall signage and replace it with <br /> a 200 square foot sign with both Oil Express & Car Wash on it,but it would be <br /> impossible to read from highway 10. In addition,the existing wall signs cost$16,000 <br /> when they were put up. In a time when we are all promoting recycling, it seems like an <br /> incredible waste to throw these signs out, which are unlikely to be reused by anyone. It <br /> would take the recycling of a lot of pop bottles to make up for these signs. <br /> 5) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> The neighbor adjacent to the larger sign facing Highway 10 is our car lot and it doesn't <br /> bother us. The sign facing 171St, although it probably does have some advertising <br /> benefit, is mostly to let people know where to turn and it has been reduce in size. If <br /> granted, this building will have less wall signage per square foot of building wall than <br /> some of our neighbors with multiple tenant buildings. Granting this variance will not <br /> alter the essential character of the locality. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.