Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTFS <br />Ci.ty Council <br />Oct. 26, 1983 <br />Imp. 83-?_2 Mr. Porsberg introduced the following resoLution and moved its adoption; <br />(Cont.) <br />RESOLUTION N0. 83-1.0-501 - ORDERING 7.MPROVBMENT <br />N0. 83-22, THE IMPROVEMENT OP VIKING DRIVE BY <br />WATERMAIN <br />The f.oregoing resolution was duly seconded Uy Mrs. Nardini.. <br />Ayes (5) Torsber.f;, Nardini, Hanson, Scalze~ Pahcy. <br />Nayes (0)e <br />Resolution declared adopted< <br />This resolut:i.on appears in ResoLution ~ook Noe 9, Page 546< <br />Anderson Mrs. ScaLze felt that the City shouLd pass a resolution concerning <br />Developmenti Imp. No. ~3-21 and the Anderson development. <br />& Imp. No. <br />83-21 Mrs. Scalze introducect the foilowi.ng resoluti.on and moved its adoption: <br />(Conte) <br />RESOLUTION NOe 83-10-502 - INCLUDING IN THB <br />JOINT POldPRS AGREEMFNT tJITH THE CITY OF <br />MAPLEWOOD LOR IMPROVEM~'Nti N0. 83-21 TI[AT THG <br />TMPROVEMENT WILL NOT BF, hiADE AVAILAIILE TO <br />Tt[G ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT tINLESS THIS <br />DrVELOPM~NT CONI'ORMS TO T[IE EXISTING TYPE <br />OF DEVELOPMENT IN THAT ARPA AT THE PRESI:NT <br />TIME WIIICII IS LOW DENSITY RESIDliNTIAL <br />The f:oregoinp, resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Nardini. <br />Ayes (5) Scalze, Nardini, hanson, Porsberg, Pahey. <br />Nayes (0). <br />Resolution declar.ed adopted. <br />This resol.ution appears in Resolution flook No< 9, Page 5~~7e <br />Realty idor.ld Mr.s. Scalze pointed out that the Planning Commission has recommended <br />Sign that the conditional use permi.t requested by Realty idorid for a <br />free-standing sign not be granted, but that the request also be <br />Agenda passed on to the Counci.l. <br />IY.em No. 6 <br />Mr. Licht reported that there was an error in his report and that <br />the area should be 96 square feeto Licht stated that he recommended <br />approval of. the conditi.onal use permit subject to removal of the <br />rental sign and removal ot the present property identification sign <br />which quali.£ies as a separate free-scanding si.g,n. <br />The PLanner reported that based on interpretation of the ordinance, <br />thi.s center would not qualify for two free-standing signs< A <br />shopping center wouLd qualify for two free-standing signs. The <br />Planner stated that the i.ntent oP the ordi.nance is that shopping <br />centers can be identified. The planner stated that unLess Realty <br />World occupied the cahole building, he did not feel it appropriate <br />that they have a free-standing sign. <br />Page -5- <br />