04-23-1991 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 1991 Page 10 Larry Hickman gave some background information on his business and how it related to other retail businesses in regards to parking requirements. He felt parking requirements should be broken down into types of retail businesses. Mr. Hickman felt that the furniture business does not generate as high a volume of customers as other retail uses do . John Weicht stated that he was sure that the residents located behind the furniture store would rather look at green space than a parking lot that is not being used. Larry Toth felt that the ordinance was too restrictive in asking for that many parking stalls for this type of business. Ms. Szklarski stated that staff does not feel that a hardship has been shown and is recommending denial of the variance request. Ms. Szklarski, felt Hickman's case was more conducive to an ordinance amendment rather than a variance. Chairperson Johnson closed the public hearing. Peter Beck, City Attorney, stated that a better course of action would be an ordinance amendment to recognize the different types of retail uses. The Planning Commission was in agreement. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE FIVE STANDARDS FOR A VARIANCE, BUT RATHER PURSUE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0. Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that the City would initiate an ordinance amendment upon recommendation from the City Council. Mr. Rohlf stated that staff would not have a problem with Mr. Hickman beginning construction with the understanding that Mr. Hickman meet the ordinance as amended. 14. Conside~Variance R~Quest (Si~nage) by Elk River How-To-Hardware/P.H. Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that Elk River How-To-Hardware, represented by Dave Plude is requesting a sign variance for the occupants of the Main Street Mall. The variance is in regards to the number of wall signs per occupant not the size of the individual signs. Mr. Plude felt they had a hardship because their building faces two major streets; Highway 10 on the back side and Main Street on the front. He stated that there are other buildings in the C-l zone that have double frontage particularily those on the north side of Main Street. Janelle Szklarski stated that if the Planning Commission felt Mr. Plude's request for a variance is not a hardship situation, the Planning Commission may want to consider an ordinance amendment.