Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Minutes <br />March 19, 1990 <br /> <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />moratorium area. He indicated that his company would be impacted <br />negatively by his vote. <br /> <br />7.12 Shade Tree Representative <br /> <br />Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that the County <br />has a Board to deal with shade tree information. He indicated that he <br />would like to research some of the possibilities regarding City <br />representation on this Board. He suggested that new employee, Gary <br />Schmitz, Recycling Coordinator, be appointed to the Board. <br /> <br />I t was the consensus <br />attend the Shade Tree <br />Council at a later <br />appointment. <br /> <br />of the Council that Mr. Schmitz be allowed to <br />Board meetings and that staff recommend to the <br />date whether this would be an appropriate <br /> <br />7.8 Variance Request Re~ardin~ Si~na~e by Elk River Americlnn Motel <br /> <br />Mayor Tralle indicated that Elk River Americlnn Motel, represented by <br />Rob VanValkenburg and Mike Leary, is requesting a variance to the sign <br />ordinance to construct a free standing sign with faces in a triangular <br />configuration with each face being 290 square feet in size and <br />approximately 75 feet in height. He indicated that the request is for <br />a 226 square foot variance over the allowable 64 square foot maximum <br />size limit and also a 55 foot variance to the allowable 20 foot maximum <br />~ height limitation. <br /> <br />Jerry Schroeder, Planning Commission representative, stated that the <br />Planning Commission voted against the request by a 4-2 vote. He <br />indicated that he voted in favor of the sign variance, but that he did <br />not necessarily agree with the size that they were asking for. He <br />indicated that he felt it was a difficult situation and that there may <br />be some room for compromise. He indicated that Planning Commission <br />representative, Al Nadeau, felt the same way he did. <br /> <br />Peter Kimball, Planning Commission representative, stated that the <br />State dictates the variance stipulations and, therefore, there should <br />be no compromise. He indicated that there is a hardship, but it is not <br />a unique hardship; it is an economic hardship. He stated that 90 <br />percent of the reason for the variance request was of an economic <br />nature. Mr. Kimball further indicated that Commissioner Fuchs was <br />unable to be present at the Planning Commission meeting, however, he <br />did submit a memo to the Planning Commission stating his views on the <br />request. He indicated that he would be against the request, therefore, <br />if Mr. Fuchs would have been there, the vote would have been 5-2. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mike Leary stated that he felt they have a unique situation. He stated <br />that they were under the impression that they would be able to have <br />signage on Highway 101 which would allow traffic coming north to see <br />the sign. However, there is a moratorium on signs on Highway 101. Mr. <br />Leary stated that 65 to 70 percent of all the residency through the <br />motel will come from transient traffic and without a sign as they are <br />asking for, people will not be able to recognize that there is a motel <br />in that location. He indicated that reason for the height variance <br />