My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.7. & 6.8. SR 01-17-2006
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2006
>
01/17/2006
>
6.7. & 6.8. SR 01-17-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:35:42 AM
Creation date
1/13/2006 9:22:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
1/17/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 />City Conncil :Minutes <br />December 19, 2005 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />Councilmember Dietz stated the applicant will be making improvements to the site and he <br />didn't want to discourage him away from Elk River. <br /> <br />Councilmember Motin stated he believed the Housing and Redevelopment Authority <br />(HRA) would not like the sign design. He stated he would like to see the applicants business <br />at the lumber yard site but the HRA hasn't completed the redevelopment concept for this <br />area. He stated would like to see a traditional sign design. He would be more inclined to <br />allow storage on the site. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dietz questioned the signage dimensions and appearance. He stated he <br />does not have a problem with how it looks as long as it meets the city's requirements. He <br />stated it wouldn't be fair to limit this applicant's sign design when other businesses in Elk <br />River have the flashing signs. <br /> <br />Mr. Gooley stated it was designed according to the city's sign requirements. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark stated the sign is not the issue. He stated the outlot is the issue and if approved it <br />would be a non-conforming parcel. <br /> <br />Commissioner Ropp explained the Planning Commissions split decision on the variance <br />request. <br /> <br />Mayor Klinzing questioned if the applicant could get a variance on his equipment rental site. <br /> <br />Mr. Beck stated if the applicant is allowed to use the outlot, then the city would have to <br />allow usage on other outlots. He stated liability concerns. <br /> <br />Mayor Klinzing questioned if this type of use is allowed anywhere else in the city. <br /> <br />Mr. Harlicker stated that some cluster developments have security buildings to their <br />entrances on outlots. <br /> <br />Councilmember Farber stated he has no issues with the sign being allowed on the outlot but <br />he would like to see a different looking sign. <br /> <br />Mr. Beck stated if the sign is allowed it should be part of a condition in the conditional use <br />permit. He suggested making the sign and interim condition. He suggested continuing this <br />request until staff has time to draft the proper language that will apply to this specific parcel <br />and not affect other outlots. <br /> <br />Mayor Klinzing stated she envision one sign that would list all the businesses in the area. <br /> <br />Mayor Klinzing opened the public hearing for the conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Jim Gooley, representing the applicant-Stated he has an issue with closing the access point <br />on Railroad Drive to send his customers to 4th Street. <br /> <br />Mayor Klinzing closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mayor Klinzing questioned if a Right In-Right Out off of Railroad Drive could work. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.