Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to the Planning CommissionN 99-17 <br /> December 22, 1999 <br /> Page 3 <br /> water tower and pedestrian bridge has, to some extent, compounded the visibility <br /> • <br /> problem. <br /> Deprivation of Rights <br /> Denial of the variance would not deny the applicant's ability to have signage. They <br /> have the option of relocating a sign from another part of the building to the desired <br /> location. Elk Park Center, zoned PUD, has signage on both sides; however, it is limited <br /> to two signs per tenant, well within the ordinance requirements. <br /> Applicant's Action or Inaction <br /> The applicant has stated that the adjacent strip mall to the south blocks the original <br /> signage on the building. The mall, while closer to 169, is actually lower than <br /> Applebees. At the time the mall was being constructed, the applicant could have made <br /> plans to relocate one of the signs to a more advantageous location. <br /> Adverse Impacts <br /> Placing an additional sign on the structure would not adversely affect the residents of <br /> Elk River; property to the east is commercial in nature. A new, illuminated sign in the <br /> proposed location, could pose a traffic hazard to motorists on 169 trying to read the <br /> • sign within the small window of opportunity that exists. This would be a new element in <br /> the landscape. <br /> Recommendation <br /> While staff is sympathetic to the applicant's plight, they have not met the five conditions <br /> for granting a variance. The applicant could explore other forms of advertising, <br /> including temporary signs (inflatable, located on the roof) or relocating an existing sign <br /> from the west side of the building. Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments <br /> deny the request to allow a fourth sign on the building. <br /> • <br />