My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7.1. SR 04-20-2015
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2015
>
04-20-2015
>
7.1. SR 04-20-2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/17/2015 2:04:32 PM
Creation date
4/17/2015 2:02:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
4/20/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
Request for Action <br />To <br />Item Number <br />Mayor and City Council <br />7.1 <br />Agenda Section <br />Meeting Date <br />Prepared by <br />Public Hearin <br />Aril 20, 2015 <br />Chris Leeseber , Park Planner - Planner <br />Item Description <br />Reviewed by <br />Request by Farmers Insurance for height and size <br />Jeremy Barnhart, Deputy Director, CODD <br />variance for a sign, 312 Main Street NW, Case No. <br />Reviewed by <br />V 15 -04 — Public Hearing <br />Cal Portner, City Administrator <br />Action Requested <br />Approve with conditions, or deny each of the five criteria, by motion, for the proposed variance for the <br />following: <br />1. A sign height variance of 2 feet 8 inches; and <br />2. A sign size variance of 32.8 square feet. <br />If the City Council finds that the request does not meet a criterion for a variance, specific reason(s) shall <br />be stated for each of the criteria that do not meet the requirements. <br />If one or more of the criteria are denied by motion, the request needs to be denied. <br />Overview <br />The applicant is seeking a 2 foot 8 inch sign height variance and a 32.8 square foot sigh size variance. <br />Planning Commission meeting summary <br />No one spoke for or against the variance at the meeting. Staff did provide comments from two phone <br />calls received. One caller was opposed to it, stating that nine feet was too tall. The second caller was <br />opposed to it and questioned what precedence it would set for signs on Main Street. <br />The commission reviewed each of the five criteria and made motions on each criterion. <br />They unanimously denied the variance as requested as they found that: <br />• Criteria #1 was not met 7 -0 <br />• Criteria #2 was met 7 -0 <br />• Criteria #3 was not met 7 -0 <br />• Criteria #4 was not met 7 -0 <br />• Criteria #5 was not met 7 -0 <br />Additional information <br />Staff received an email (attached) from a neighboring business after the Planning Commission meeting. <br />Applicable Regulation <br />Below are the applicant's responses to the variance criteria. <br />P O W€ 8 E 0 A Y <br />NAWREI <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.