My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-24-2017 PC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2010 - 2019
>
2017
>
01-24-2017 PC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2017 10:30:00 AM
Creation date
3/29/2017 10:29:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
1/24/2017
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 /> Mr. Carlton highlighted the following: <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—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 doesn't believe they should be <br /> categorized as a sign. <br /> Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. <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 of a sign. <br /> Commissioner Rydberg noted there are other options for the church. <br /> Councilmember Wagner stated the Council felt the church proposed a beautiful sign but the <br /> issue the Council struggled with was the size of the sign,noting it was 2 1/2 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 /> Mr.Anderson asked if the church would be good to go if they re-submit an application <br /> offering a different height option. He also questioned roof signs. <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 /> Commissioner Rydberg stated there has also been some discussion from the neighborhood <br /> about the impact on the surrounding aesthetics,which may have been a concern due to its <br /> height,but if the church were to change their request the neighbors may have less of a <br /> concern. <br /> Moved by Commissioner Vito and seconded by Commissioner Konietzko to <br /> recommend approval of an ordinance amendment relating to signage as outlined in <br /> the staff report. Motion carried 7-0. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.