My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.9
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Packets
>
_Prior to 1999
>
1999
>
05-25-1999
>
6.9
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2018 11:05:03 AM
Creation date
4/16/2018 11:05:02 AM
Metadata
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
Memo to Planning Commission <br /> May 25, 1999 <br /> Page 2 <br /> freestanding sites and multi-tenant buildings. This site is a mix of both; it is <br /> • a multi-tenant building on a freestanding site. <br /> If this site was considered as a multi-tenant building, similar to the stores in <br /> the Target building, each business would be allowed only one wall sign. This <br /> did not seem practical given the location of the lot. Staff felt a more realistic <br /> approach would be to treat each business as freestanding in terms of <br /> applying the sign agreement. <br /> Freestanding buildings are allowed one wall sign unless the building abuts 2 <br /> or more public streets. In this case the building abuts three streets so they <br /> would be allowed a total of three wall signs if the building was occupied by a <br /> single tenant. However, since the building has two tenants, each tenant will <br /> need its own signange. Each tenant has frontage on two streets. Hollywood <br /> Video has frontage on Highway 169 and 191st Avenue and Leeann Chin has <br /> frontage on Freeport Street and 191st Avenue. <br /> It is staffs interpretation that according the existing sign agreement each <br /> tenant is allowed two wall signs, one for each street frontage. The applicant <br /> is not disputing that interpretation. What they are requesting is the sign <br /> agreement be amended to allow additional signage on the awnings. None of <br /> the other buildings or businesses in the center have signage on the awnings. <br /> • The Elk Park Center PUD agreement does not specifically address awning <br /> signs. <br /> Evaluation of Request <br /> It is difficult to justify allowing one tenant in the center to have awning signs <br /> when none of the other businesses have them. The applicant states they need <br /> the extra signage because it is part of their standard package. By allowing <br /> the awning signage a precedent may be set for other businesses asking the <br /> same. This could affect the other businesses in Elk Park Center as well as <br /> businesses in other PUDs. <br /> Recommendation <br /> Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of Leeann <br /> Chin's request to amend the Elk Park Center PUD agreement to allow <br /> awning signage on their building. <br /> • <br /> \\ELKRIVER\SYS\SHRDOC\PLANNING\SCOTT\LEEANNPA.DOC <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.