Laserfiche WebLink
aviINIITES <br />Ciby Council <br />August 129 ay81 <br />Rk:SOLU`PIOIY N0. Sl.mH-399 p API'I~VING T$E; COiQAI`PIOVAI, USE <br />PERZ4I`P FOR SIGIVS k'OR CONNCC SHOES ANll k'IIRNITUkZE; 5HOWCASE <br />`l'0 ALL(jW 'PHE I'HESENT ~pOF SIGN ANU THi: FURNITURL~ SHOWCASE <br />S1GN ON 'PHE NOR`PH SIDE OF TkIE BUILDING ANU `PHE TWO SIGNS <br />LUCA7'F:D ON TFiE FItON'1' OF TRE k~UILDING FOk N'UHNITUI2E SHOW~ <br />CASE ANll CONNCO SHOP:S WITH THL UNDEN.STANllING THAT NO <br />FURTSIER PEl?1~L1Nf~idx' SIGiVS UR `i'EN3t~ORARY SSGNS OF ANX NATIINk:9 <br />INCLUUING BLINKING 7'YPE SIGNS9 BE AliLOWED ON TH~ BUII,DING <br />1'he foregoing resolution was duly seconded by i"irs, Scalze, <br />Ayes (5) F'ahey, Scalze, fIanson9 Nardiniy korsberg, <br />Nayes (0)a <br />Resolution declared adopteda <br />i'his resolution appears "in Resolution F3ook aVO. 7, ~'ages 270 and 271,. <br />Nr, Forsberg commented that he did not ~~~prove o£ the situation <br />~rhere a business erected their permanerat signs under a tempoxary <br />sign permit, The City 1'lanner commented that the City sta~'f has <br />the authority to i.ssue tEmporary sign ~ermits9 and it was a chance <br />the busa.ness took an erecting their permanenL signs under this <br />permit. Had the szgns not been approved, the Ca.ty has tYie authori-ty <br />to requixe removal of these signse <br />Vacation 0~ 1~iayor Hansoza o;~ened the public hearizag on the proposed vacation of <br />Po.rtion 0£ the north ten feet and south ten feet of Bluwood rigYzt-of-way, <br />I3].uwood also known as Centra~. Avenue9 and maintain a utility easement or~ <br />Averaue the south side of Bluwood Avea~ue, <br />l~ayor Hanson stated that the reason Council initiated this actioxi <br />was that alrs, Schabert previously requested approval of a property <br />divisa.on. One of the lots that would result from the diva.sion would <br />be a corner lot and did not tneet the 119000 square feet requirement <br />o~ City Code. The lot would only consist of ~.09800 square feet, <br />If the pxoposed vacation were approved9 it would give the Schabert <br />property enough area to meet the 11,000 square foot requirement. <br />Nlr, Mark Lendway9 a resident on Bl.uwood Avenue, appeared before <br />the Council, Mr, Zendway stated that he was not in favor o£ the <br />vacation of this portion of }lluwood. The vacation would just give <br />him more propexty that would be oi' no use to him and would increase <br />his ~roperty taxes, iyir, Lendway stated that he was in favor of <br />Mrs. Schabert bein~ gxanted a variance so that she could divide hex <br />property> <br />Council.man F'ahey stated that i£ the CounciJ. did any vacat9ng oz~ <br />Bluvrood Avenue it should vacate the property down to only what is <br />needed for f37.uwood. Fatzey stated that it does not make sense for <br />the Caty to maintain a 100 foot ragk~t,_of-way zQr IIluwood. <br />Nlayor itanson stated that he ~greed with this, but also felt that at <br />the present time Mre. Schabert shoul.d just be granted a variance and <br />Council could consider the vacation at anotYzer time, <br />Page a3-~ <br />