Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />June 4, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />OVERALL LAND USE PATTERN IN THE AREA. COMMISSIONER SPOTTS SECONDED THE <br />MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-1. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nadeau was opposed to denying the request as he felt that <br />this was an agricultural zone and could accommodate such a use, and <br />that the applicant had taken precautions to alleviate the concerns. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued on the proposed 38 ft. variance from the required 50 <br />ft. rear yard setback. Commissioner Spotts stated that due to the <br />trees and the roadway between the house and the barn, the only location <br />for the barn was as proposed. If a variance were denied, the building <br />would need to be moved closer to the surrounding neighbors. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bischoff stated that if the barn were reduced in size, it <br />would eliminate the need for a variance. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF <br />THE VARIANCE FOR GERALD FAST SITING THE FIVE STANDARDS OF A VARIANCE AS <br />HE FELT THE OPERATION WAS TOO LARGE IN SIZE AND THAT IF THE OPERATION <br />AND THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING WERE REDUCED A VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE <br />NEEDED. COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED <br />5-1. <br /> <br />Commissioner Spotts was opposed to denying the variance. He felt there <br />was no other place to put the agricultural buildings. <br /> <br />Mr. Rohlf emphasized that the denial was due to the small size of the <br />parcel and not because of the location in the agricultural zone. The <br />commission agreed with Mr. Rohlf's statement. <br /> <br />6. Ordinance Amendment/Section 900. 22/Si~ns Permitted in C-lICentral <br />Commercial Zone/BY the City of Elk River/P.H. <br /> <br />Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the proposed amendment <br />would allow two wall signs per occupant in the C-l zoning district. <br />This would accommodate buildings who have visibility from more than one <br />street. <br /> <br />Chairperson Johnson opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Eberley stated that she felt this would also given an <br />incenti ve for some businesses to dress up the back sides of their <br />buildings. <br /> <br />Dave Plude of Elk River Hardware, thanked the Planning Commission and <br />staff for their foresight in addressing this issue, and was in <br />agreement with the proposed ordinance amendment. <br /> <br />Steve Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, stated that the C-2 <br />district would still be allowed only one wall sign per occupant as this <br />was more of an transitional zone than the C-1 district. <br /> <br />Chairperson Johnson questioned the definition of "building frontage" as <br />it is used in the determination of the amount o'f signage. It was <br />