My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3.1 PC MIN 11-12-2013 DRAFT
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2011-2020
>
2014
>
01-14-2014
>
3.1 PC MIN 11-12-2013 DRAFT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2014 10:42:57 AM
Creation date
1/10/2014 10:42:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
11/12/2013
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
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 <br /> November 12,2013 <br /> Commissioner Konietzko stated that if the signage amount was written as a <br /> percentage of the building,he would be in favor of something more toward what <br /> Granite Shores was requesting. <br /> Mr. Barnhart stated that he struggled with the concept of a variance since most of <br /> the downtown is similar. <br /> Commissioner Mike Keller asked if Granite Shores was sold, the buyer could use the <br /> sign to advertise anything they wanted and may not be willing to advertise downtown <br /> events. <br /> Mr. Barnhart stated that a number of properties were assembled for the Granite <br /> Shores building and there could be another large building downtown someday with a <br /> similar sign request. He did not want to create a nonconforming use and that the <br /> goal is to not create impediments for businesses. <br /> Ms. Deckert,Decklan Group—stated that the language she was proposing would <br /> address the long term issue of multi-tenant building signage and would prevent <br /> monument signs from popping up all over. <br /> Ms. Wagner stated she was not sure that would be a bad thing to have other similar <br /> signs,if the needs of the businesses change. <br /> Chair Westberg stated that the current amendment proposes a 6 ft. high monument <br /> sign. Commissioner Keller asked if the Commission would want to see other 18 ft. <br /> high signs in the downtown. Ms. Deckert stated that the 18 ft. high sign would help <br /> to avoid vandalism. <br /> Discussion then followed regarding billboards in the CRT zoning district. <br /> Commissioner Konietzko stated he was unsure how billboards would harm the CRT. <br /> He stated that billboards could be moved and that he has seen them in front of retail, <br /> housing and residential. <br /> Mr. Barnhart stated that billboards are not prohibited on the west side of Highway <br /> 169. He stated that the CRT zoning was established so that property owners would <br /> not make large investments into the property when the future use was unknown, as <br /> well as the location of an interchange on Highway 169. <br /> Commissioner Eric Johnson asked if the Planning Commission could recommend <br /> that the City Council direct staff to look for places that billboards could be located. <br /> Steve Anderson stated that the principal use clause prevents them from being able to <br /> locate billboards along Highway 169. Mr. Barnhart explained why the property <br /> owners are not willing to sell small parcels for the billboards. He explained why staff <br /> is not recommending opening up the CRT for billboards on the east side of Highway <br /> 169. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.