04-16-85 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4-16-85 PAGE 3 Pursuant to published notice, this public hearing was opened at 8:05 in the city council chambers. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application at its April 8, 1985 meeting. One property owner, a representative of the Vali-Hi Drive In, was present to voice opposition to this proposal. The opposition was based on the premise that the sign would distract from the Vali-Hi Drive In sign that will be reconstructed once the I-94 Project is completed. Signs are allowed in the Commercial District by CUP. Signs are governed by City Code Section 505. The Code indicates that advertising signs in Commercial and Industrial Districts shall not exceed 200 square feet in area. The height of the display shall not exceed 35 feet. The Code further states that advertising signs shall not be located closer than 3000 feet to any other sign on the same side of the street or highway. The variances are requested because the applicant cannot meet these requirements. The sign being proposed is 672 square feet (14 x 480 per side). This sign is proposed to be a two-sided sign with 672 sq. fee an each side and would be within 3000 feet of the drive in sign. The Planning Commission could not find any hardship with this application and voted to recommend denial of the CUP application and sign code variances. Jamie Olson and a representative of Sign Crafters, Jack Lawrence, gave a presentation of the proposed. sign. The site of the proposed sign is 395 feet long and 111 feet wide (slightly more than an acre). Mr. Lawrence stated that the sign could be opened up so that the lights did not offend or bother those at the drive in. The lights could also be adjusted'with lens covers and shrubery could be placed in the back along with other berming to eliminate this potential problem. Mr. Lawrence further pointed out that Washington County has a 500 foot separation between signs. It was pointed out that the site was useable and buildable until Mn/DOT took some of the land for the I-94 construction, and there is not much more that can be done with this remnant of land as it is not large enough to put a building on until such time as the area is serviced by sewer. Jamie Olson pointed out that the sign is not as permanent as a building. It is a good interim use for a piece of property while an area is developing into a freeway business. The sign, at some time, could be moved. Harold Sheff, representing the owners of the Vali-Hi Drive In stated that the portion of land that was taken for the construction of I-94 had the drive in sign on it, and this sign was demolished. He is now in the process of deciding how big the new sign has to be. There was a trial last week with the Highway Department on damages that had to be paid for taking the sign; the easements, etc; :At that trial, everybody agreed that the new sign would have to be much larger than