My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-22-89 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
11-22-89 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 2:56:43 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:52:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 22, 1989 <br />Blesener reported that he has looked at the Sailboard <br />Warehouse site and reported that they are not <br />displaying their wares in their yard. Sailboard <br />Warehouse has a sign on the side of their building and <br />flags at the top of the building. Blesener suggested <br />that the City Planner look at this to determine if the <br />conditions of the Ordinance are being met. <br />Blesener further pointed out that the outdoor display <br />of goods by Knox is done within fenced-in areas. <br />Blesener further stated that both Sailboard Warehouse <br />and Knox are using their own property, while Mr. Wesch <br />is proposing his display on common ground used by a <br />number of businesses renting space from MN <br />Mini-Storage. <br />Wesch replied that he was not using common ground, but <br />rather property that he is leasing from MN <br />Mini-Storage. Wesch asked the Council to outline their <br />reasons for opposing his request. <br />Fahey replied that he believes what Mr. Wesch is <br />proposing is a ground-level billboard. Fahey felt the <br />situation was different from that of Knox which has a <br />shed, for example, on their site for sale. Fahey felt <br />the proposal was a method of circumventing the sign <br />ordinance. Fahey pointed out that the City put a lot <br />of time and effort into developing its sign ordinance. <br />Fahey felt the proposal was not appropriate and <br />approval of it would set a precedent. Fahey stated <br />that he could not support the request since he felt it <br />was a billboard or advertising sign which is in excess <br />of the size allowable under the City's sign ordinance. <br />Scalze pointed out that the City no longer allows <br />billboards in the City, although there are currently a <br />couple of billboards which are grandfathered in. <br />Wesch pointed out the Gardner Bros.'s billboard. <br />Scalze replied that the City is currently addressing <br />the subject of the Gardner Bros.'s sign. <br />Wesch pointed out that the structure will not present a <br />flat image like a billboard, but is rather a temporary <br />structure. Wesch stated that he felt his proposal was <br />an asset to the community, since it could cause his <br />business to continue to grow. Wesch felt that denial <br />of his request would be a restriction on his business. <br />Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.