03-31-98 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 31,1998 Mayor John called the special meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council chambers. PRESENT: Hunt, Dunn, DeLapp, John, Johnston (arrived at 5:45), Administrator Kueffner 1. Appeal by Robert and Carol (Jeanne Novak, Lake Elmo Oil, 11127 Stillwater Blvd N., to size of Free Standing Sign Bob Novak explained Lake Elmo Oil has been a family owned business for over 75 years and needs to remain competitive. Signage proposed is 20% less than what is existing. Th ball rotates so it can be seen from all sides. The Council received letters from surrounding property owners indicating no objection to Lake Elmo Oil replacing their current "76" signage at the corner of State Highway 5 and County Road 17 with a 7 x 10' rectangular CITGO identification and price sign and replacing their "76" identification on their canopy with the new CITGO identification. Pete Schiltgen stated Lake Elmo Oil has been there a long time. The corner is cluttered with signage already. If Lake Elmo Oil makes its sign smaller, it would get lost. If the sign helps the family oriented business to succeed, it should be approved. John Schiltz, Lake Elmo Inn, stated Lake Elmo Oil is part of the character of Lake Elmo. The business has been here a long time. Wyn John stated the code doesn't differentiate businesses, historically, from new businesses. Jim McClod stated gas stations are a competitive business. The City should not put an existing business into the position of not being competitive with existing signs of competitors. A new business as Cennex has a choice. They know what the sign ordinance states, and they have to make the decision "Do they want to invest money and have a small signs?" This is a form of taking if the City does not permit Lake Elmo Oil having larger signs. Dennis LaCroix, Twin Point Tavern, has 10-12 retired people in to drink coffee and they talk about gasoline prices. You cannot deny businesses the competitive edge. Jeanne Nelson, on behalf of the Village Commission, supported the Planning Commission on denial of the variance request to 70' and the signs on the canopy. They do support the variance to the height. She has written to CITGO requesting information on minimum size requirements, but has not heard from them. Council member Dunn stated the sign ordinance is very restrictive and not appropriate for a state highway. At the last Council meeting, she asked that the sign ordinance be revisited because of the numbers. The Heritage Preservation Commission was going to look at an Overlay District for the business in the Old Village because of the number of variances that have been requested. Council member Hunt stated the existing signage is not as safe as signage proposed. You have to look up and then look down. Because of lot size, lot layout and nature of businesses, signage is needed on canopy. Administrator Kueffner indicated the original direction was to prepare an overlay for the Old Village. Signage, walkway, building design will be looked at by the Old Village Commission. Mayor John stated the projected area of 38.5 sq.ft. is the correct area of signage. You only see the top portion of the ball from the west. Visual aspect of ball sign is as important to you as you see. All businesses, old and new, have to comply with the sign ordinance. The code does not state that businesses