My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.2. SR 10-19-1998
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1998
>
10/19/1998
>
6.2. SR 10-19-1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:33:23 AM
Creation date
2/5/2004 8:02:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
10/19/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
Memo to Board of Adjustments/V 98-9 <br />September 29, 1998 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />The applicant states they were unaware the retail center would block <br />signage. The fact that the applicant did not foresee the impact the retail <br />center would have on the visibility of their signage is a result of the <br />applicant's inaction. However, this could be addressed by relocating one of <br />the existing signs. <br /> <br />Staff agrees with the applicant in that the granting of this variance would <br />not affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of Elk River. <br /> <br />Board of Adjustment Meeting <br /> <br />At the Board of Adjustment meeting held on September 22, 1998 no one <br />spoke at the public hearing. The Board discussed the possibility moving <br />existing signs for better visibility from Highway 169 and that other <br />businesses along Highway 169 made a marketing decision to place one of <br />their allowed signs so that it is visible from the highway. They did not feel <br />the applicant met the criteria for granting a variance and voted to deny the <br />request. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />It is recommended the City Council deny this variance request for a 4th wall <br />sign based on the following findings: <br /> <br />Literal enforcement of the ordinance will not cause undue hardship. The <br />applicant could move one of the other signs to a location that is more <br />visible from Highway 169. <br /> <br />The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would not <br />deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same <br />district under the terms of this ordinance. Other businesses along <br />Highway 169 made a marketing decision to place one of their allowed <br />signs so that it would be visible from Highway 169. <br /> <br />The special conditions and circumstances are a consequence of the <br />petitioner's own action or inaction. The fact that the applicant did not <br />foresee the impact the retail center would have on the visibility of their <br />signage is a result of the applicant's inaction. However, this could be <br />addressed by relocating one of the existing signs. <br /> <br />s:\planning\scott\v98-9.doc <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.