My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-25-1991 PC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
1990 - 1999
>
1991
>
06-25-1991 PC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:30 AM
Creation date
9/12/2005 3:28:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
6/25/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />P. C. Minutes <br />6/25/91 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER EBERLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. <br /> <br />8. Consider Variance ReQuest (Si~na~e) by John Plaisted/P.H. <br /> <br />Janelle Szklarski, Zoning Assistant, stated that the applicant is <br />requesting a variance which would allow two freestanding signs to be <br />combined into one sign to be placed on the east side of the building in <br />order to gain visibility from Highway 169. She further stated that the <br />applicants are requesting that the total footage of the freestanding <br />signage be increased from 128 sq. ft. to 300 sq. ft. Ms. Szklarski <br />addressed the five standards for a variance as well as her response to <br />Mr. Plaisted's comment. Ms. Szklarski stated that staff does not feel <br />that a hardship has been shown and is recommending denial of the <br />variance request. <br /> <br />Chairperson Johnson opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Todd Plaisted explained his requesting stating that there is a small <br />clearing north of the their building where they propose to put the <br />freestanding sign. Because of the row of trees along the bank, they <br />were requesting to put the freestanding sign on that small clearing so <br />they would not have to remove the trees in order for someone to see <br />their sign. <br /> <br />Mark Martin stated that Mr. Plaisted was doing a nice job of <br />landscaping. <br /> <br />Chairperson Johnson closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Chairperson Johnson reminded the Planning Commission that a hardship <br />must be proven in order to approve the variance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nadeau stated that he felt the property was sensitive due <br />to the location of the trees. He further stated that rather than cut <br />down the trees he felt the freestanding sign would look better on the <br />ground and away from the building in order to save the trees. He <br />stated he was not in favor of the 300 sq. ft. freestanding signage, but <br />was recommending 256 sq. ft. instead which would be in keeping with the <br />ordinance. The Planning Commission was in agreement with Commissioner <br />Nadeau. Mr. Todd Plaisted agreed to the compromise for a 256 sq. ft. <br />freestanding sign. <br /> <br />COMMISSIONER NADEAU MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF <br />THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 300 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN BUT <br />RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A 256 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN NOT TO EXCEED <br />15 FT. IN HEIGHT WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE WALL SIGNAGE BE LIMITED TO <br />A TOTAL OF 128 SQ. FT. AND THAT NONE OF THE WALL SIGNAGE SHALL BE PUT <br />ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF <br />FACT: <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />THAT THE LOCATION OF THE TREES ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING <br />MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE APPLICANT TO UTILIZE THE WALL SIGNAGE <br />ALLOWED WITHOUT REMOVING THOSE TREES, AND THAT A FREESTANDING SIGN <br />COULD BE PLACED WITHIN A SMALL CLEARING IN THOSE TREES TO GAIN <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.