My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-18-92 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1990's
>
1992
>
05-18-92 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 3:36:32 PM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:22:32 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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 MAY 18, 1992 4 <br />M/S/P Williams/Mottaz - to direct the City staff to obtain <br />answers to the above questions and check with the Civil <br />Defense Director for guidelines and report back to the <br />Council at their earliest convenience. (Motion carried 4- <br />0) . <br />Dan Krawczyk explained that Community Block Grant <br />Development funds were available to each County and he would <br />look into this. Floyd Olson will check with Glen Shumacher, <br />APAC, on availability of funds to mobile home parks. <br />C. Update on Signs in City <br />Jim McNamara reported that permits and numbers are being <br />assigned to all signs in the City. There are a few signs in <br />thtOld Village that are not labelled as yet, but this will <br />be completed by June 1st. <br />The three advertising signs in the City are the Naegle sign <br />on Hwy 5, Afton Alps sign on Hwy 5 and Cty Rd 15, and the <br />Menards sign. The Naegle sign and Afton Alps sign were <br />permitted by State Permits in 1973 and 1974 before the city <br />had adopted a sign ordinance. <br />Attorney John Miller explained in regard to legal non- <br />conforming uses or "grandfathered in" uses, the statutes do <br />allow for the amortization of non -conforming uses as long as <br />there is reasonable amount of time and you leave the <br />propertyowner with a reasonable use of his property. So <br />there is a way to actually eliminate non -conforming uses if <br />so desired. <br />Jim pointed out in the sign ordinance, section 505.020A, <br />states all signs must have a permit except for the <br />following --Any sign under 10 sq.ft. does not require a <br />permit. Therefore, there are business signs in the Old <br />Village area; such as, Salon Elite, Lake ELmo Inn that do <br />not have a permit. Jim asked if the City wanted to continue <br />this policy. <br />Jim McNamara will look into if the Brookfield sign is <br />considered an advertising sign. In regard to tenants of DC <br />Sales wanting signs, Jim will also check into DC Sales <br />application for the addition to their building because it <br />was stated then there was only going to be one other tenant <br />besides them. Also, the frontage of DC sales will be <br />checked because front lineal footage regulates the number of <br />signs for each property. Jim indicated he would not approve <br />another sign permit for DC Sales until the White Wolf sign <br />is brought into compliance because it is oversized. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.