My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1 PCSR 03-28-2017 DRAFT MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
2011-2020
>
2017
>
03-28-2017
>
4.1 PCSR 03-28-2017 DRAFT MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2017 2:08:20 PM
Creation date
3/23/2017 2:08:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCSR
date
3/28/2017
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 />January 24, 2017 <br />Commissioner Rydberg questioned the appeal process. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlton highlighted the following: <br /> <br />Staff review <br />city attorney review <br />formal land use appeal process <br /> Chair Johnson opened the public hearing. <br />Zack Anderson, 4546 Logan Avenue N, Mpls Ï Stated he was here on behalf of the <br />Gateway Church and Vanman Architects. He expressed concerns with the definition of <br />signage versus symbols. He stated he is not here in opposition to anything but would like to <br />see a different definition for religious symbols because he doesnÔt believe they should be <br />categorized as a sign. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson further discussed the Gateway issues with the signage being free-standing <br />versus on the building. He stated the city has a good definition <br /> <br />Commissioner Rydberg noted there are other options for the churc <br /> <br />Councilmember Wagner stated the Council felt the church proposed <br />issue the Council struggled with was the size of the sign, noting it was 2 ½ times larger than <br />city ordinance allowed. She further noted staff offered several other options the church <br />could consider which they seemed amendable to at the time. <br /> <br />Mr. Anderson asked if the church would be good to go if they re- <br />offering a different height option. He also questioned roof sign <br /> <br />It was noted there were other concerns from their previous application request that would <br />have to be addressed, such as a second free-standing sign. <br />Mr. Carlton stated roof signs are prohibited by ordinance. He noted there are some churches <br />that do have crosses on the roof, but they are considered legal non-conforming signage. <br /> <br />Commissioner Rydberg stated there has also been some discussion from the neighborhood <br />about the impact on the surrounding aesthetics, which may have b <br />height, but if the church were to change their request the neighbors may have less of a <br />concern. <br /> <br />Moved by Commissioner Vito and seconded by Commissioner Konietzk <br />recommend approval of an ordinance amendment relating to signage as outlined in <br />the staff report. Motion carried 7-0. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.