05-16-00 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council member DeLapp pointed out that by a 9-0 vote by the Planning Commission denied the sign variance because there is no basis to approve based on code. We are supposed to be enforcing our code. What are the hardships that this sign is necessary that no other one in town would have? It's irrelevant that there are larger signs in the city. Then we should change the sign code to fit the Old Village area. Council member Armstrong liked the submitted sign drawing, but as it happen, one neighbor sees approval of a larger sign as done with the 76 station and feels he should be approved to have a larger sign. The Planning Commission denied the sign variance, even though the sign was smaller and neater than existing, it still does not meet the sign standards and no hardship was submitted. The City should be more consistent with applying our sign ordinance. According to the 1987 Council minutes, the Council granted 9 variances. It is time to stop the train of variances. Planner Dillerud indicated the Planning Commission looked at the sign ordinance and decided they did not want it changed. Dunn pointed out that in 1997 the Council asked to include input from the Lake Elmo Business Community and that has not happened. Council Member Siedow lives next to this business and found traffic blockage is not a problem with the large sign now. There are other businesses on Hwy 5 that have larger signs already. Mayor Hunt felt the sign ordinance became overly restrictive. This is a unique site, and the proposed sign is much better than what is there. Mayor Hunt closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. MIS/ Dunn/Siedow- to direct the city administrator to come up with findings of fact, such as, lot configuration, constraints, to approve the request for sign Administrator Kueffner pointed out according to the code it is the applicant that has to show the hardship. Council should give their findings of fact to the city. M/S/P Dunn/Siedow — to direct the applicant Rich Kosman, to come back with findings of fact for proving a hardship to be included in a resolution for Council consideration at the June 6`h Council meeting. (Motion passed 4-1:Armstrong.) Bicycle Path Request Don May asked for a bicycle path because of the number of children riding their bikes to get to Oakdale. Council member Dunn brought up this item since the Council just approved the new road. M/S/P Dunn/Armstrong - to look at constructing a bike path from the new road, south cul de -sac to Imperial Ave, as described in submitted map, because of the safety concern for kids riding their bikes to Oakdale and to let Brian Bachmier know. (Motion passed 5-0) D. 1-94 & Old Village Water System Planner Dillerud gave a summary of the proposed plan for financing the improvements under consideration for the Old Village Water System; and the construction of well, storage and pumping facilities to serve the 120 acre portion of Lake Ehno within the MUSA, a portion of which is now served with water by Oakdale. Springsted, Tautges and Tom Prew have reviewed the entire package. The Council was impressed with the financing package presented and asked for a copy of the sheet on tax abatement. 1VI/S/P Siedow/Dunn — to direct the staff to prepare plans and specs for stem for 1-94 and Old Village Water System. (Motion passed 3-2:DeLapp: concern on future implications for higher development, Armstrong have a water source with the City of Oakdale, self sufficient in 194 and could continue on, don't have a problem with Old Village water system and let 194 sit by itself.) Planner Dillerud volunteer to clear up the concern of further development and strategy concerns. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 16, 2000 4