6.3. SR 01-18-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memotothe Mayorand City CouncilN99-17 Janua~ 6,2000 Page 3 water tower and pedestrian bridge has, to some extent, compounded the visibility problem. Deprivation of Riqhts Denial of the variance would not deny the applicant's ability to have signage. They have the option of relocating a sign from another part of the building to the desired location. Elk Park Center, zoned PUD, has signage on both sides; however, it is limited to two signs per tenant, well within the ordinance requirements. Applicant's Action or Inaction The applicant has stated that the adjacent strip mall to the south blocks the original signage on the building. The mall, while closer to 169, is actually lower than Applebees. At the time the mall was being constructed, the applicant could have made plans to relocate one of the signs to a more advantageous location. Adverse Impacts Placing an additional sign on the structure would not adversely affect the residents of Elk River; property to the east is commercial in nature. A new, illuminated sign in the proposed location, could pose a traffic hazard to motorists on 169 trying to read the sign within the small window of opportunity that exists. This would be a new element in the landscape. Board of Adjustment Action The Board of Adjustment was divided on this issue. Several of the members disagreed with staff's interpretation of two signs on the west side of the building. In the end, the Board voted 3-2 to recommend that the City Council deny the variance request. Recommendation While staff is sympathetic to the applicant's plight, they have not met the five conditions for granting a variance. The applicant could explore other forms of advertising, including temporary signs (inflatable, located on the roof) or relocating an existing sign from the west side of the building. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request to allow a fourth sign on the building.