My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-16-85 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1980's
>
1985
>
04-16-85 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2025 8:00:05 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:05:42 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 4-16-85 PAGE 4 <br />the old one and much higher. That is because the new highway is going <br />to be further away from the sign, and lower than the old highway. He <br />feels that the new sign for Vali-Hi is not going to be that different <br />from what a billboard would be in terms of size and the things that it <br />has to do. Their three major concerns are the potential problem with <br />the lights, the possibility that this sign will obscure the sign from <br />the drive in and that this proposed sign would detract from the drive <br />in sign. <br />There were no other property owners present to offer comments for or <br />against this proposal and the public hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m. <br />Morgan stated that the City Code clearly states that this proposal is <br />too large, and that there is not enough distance between signs. The <br />reason that you grant variances is because of hardships; and in this <br />case there is no other obvious use of the land at this time. <br />Therefore, the options of the Council are to deny the request based on <br />the existing City Code, grant the variances, or table the application <br />until the Planning Commission minutes are available. <br />Dunn/Armstrong - To deny the request by Jamie Olson for a CUP and <br />zoning code variances for the construction of a billboard sign as the <br />proposal does not conform to the existing City Code. (Motion carried <br />5-0) <br />Dunn stated that a sign like this would overwhelm an existing business <br />and detract from any sign that the Vali-Hi would construct. <br />The City Administrator pointed out that the "Sign" section of the City <br />Code was added to the Planning Commission's Work plan and will be <br />discussed in the not too distant future. <br />D. Request to use Planning Consultant, Rob Chelseth, for <br />assistance with the accessory structure code amendments. <br />The Administrator stated that a number of issues surfaced during the <br />Planning Commission's discussion on accessorystructures, and in <br />corresponding to the County's example in controlling accessory <br />structures. <br />The Administrator believes that the Consultant's input would be <br />valuable and would help move these proposed code modifications ahead <br />in a more timely fashion. He estimates that the Planner would <br />probably not be needed at any of the meetings, but the Commission <br />would need his input in the form of reports, and estimated that this <br />work could probably be done in approximately eight hours. He further <br />indicated that there is approximately $22,000 in the Planning <br />Commission's Reserve Fund. ***See note below <br />M/S/P Mazzara/Dunn - To authorize the use of the City Planner, Rob <br />ChelsethI for help with the accessory structure modifications. <br />(Motion carried 5-0) <br />7. City Engineer's Report <br />Larry Bohrer introduced Mr. Duane Prew, President of TKDA who attended <br />this meeting as an observer. . <br />It was noted at the 5-7-85 meeting that there is actually <br />$4700 in the Planning Commission's Reserve Fund - not $22,000 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.