My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-26-1991 PC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
1990 - 1999
>
1991
>
02-26-1991 PC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:30 AM
Creation date
9/12/2005 3:26:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
2/26/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
<br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />February 26, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 11 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Commission is not sure whether a change is appropriate, they should <br />study this issue and bring it back at another meeting. <br /> <br />Commissioner spotts stated that he would like to see a study either by <br />a task force or someone appointed by staff on the following items: 1) <br />How many apartment units do we now have in the City? 2) What is the <br />vacancy rate on all those different units? What types of people live <br />there? (What is their occupation, age, etc. 3) What impact is this <br />going to have on the school system? 4) What kind of additional traffic <br />congestion would higher density units bring. <br /> <br />Commissioner VanValkenburg stated that they were rushing through this <br />issue and not being fair to Mr. Weicht. <br /> <br />Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant requested <br />Johnson's comments be entered into the record. <br />attached to this memo). <br /> <br />that Chairperson <br />(Her comments are <br /> <br />After general discussion regarding this ordinance amendment, it was the <br />general consensus of the Planning Commission that they would like more <br />time to study this issue. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER SPOTTS MOVED TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE NEXT <br />SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (MARCH 26, 1991). COMMISSIONER <br />VANVALKENBURG SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. <br /> <br />13. <br /> <br />Discussion Regarding Boulevard Signs in the C-2 District <br /> <br />Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the City Council is <br />directing the Planning Commission to review its provisions regarding <br />freestanding or boulevard signs in the C-2 zoning district. Currently, <br />the ordinance allows boulevard signs in the C-2 district 5 feet high <br />and 32 sq. ft. in size. Staff is recommending that the boulevard signs <br />remain as they are. <br /> <br />Steve Rohlf explained that Mr. Chuba is his brother-in-law and he would <br />therefore be excusing himself from the discussion as to avoid a <br />conflict of interest. <br /> <br />Dennis Chuba addressed the Planning Commission regarding the allowable <br />sign height for boulevard signs. Mr. Chuba felt the height restriction <br />was too restrictive for the C-2 zoning district and was requesting some <br />flexibility to the height restriction. <br /> <br />After discussing this issue it was the general consensus of the <br />Planning Commission that the height of boulevard signs was too <br />restricti ve in the C-2 district and directed staff to proceed with an <br />ordinance amendment. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Chairperson Johnson's comments regarding this issue were entered into <br />the record at this time (see attachment for her comments). <br /> <br />14. ~+-dinance Amendment!Section__~Q~/Subdivision Ordinance <br />~dministrative Subdjvision Qx the City of Elk River/P.H. <br /> <br />Regarding <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.