My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC MINUTES 08241982
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1982
>
CC MINUTES 08241982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 6:12:37 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 6:12:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
21
SP Folder Name
CC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1982
SP Name
CC MINUTES 08241982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
-4- <br /> Mr. Krier answered questions from both the H.R.A. members and the other <br /> • persons present related to the types of families he expects for the <br /> development and how the relocation of existing tenants would be handled. <br /> Councilman Enrooth indicated the City envisions there may be a number <br /> of "empty nesters" who may be interested in this maintenance-free type <br /> of living rather than their single .family homes which are now too big <br /> since their families have grown up and moved out. Mr. Krier indicated <br /> that even though the marketing committee would be contacting ,mostly <br /> multi-family developers , the H.R.A. plan would remain flexible enough <br /> to accommodate acceptable proposals from other developers as well. <br /> The planning consultant- also indicated that, although it is anticipated <br /> that most of the condominiums would be cooperatively owned, rentals had <br /> not been altogether ruled out for the project. He then assured Mr. Kelly <br /> that the integrity of the development would be protected by the agree- <br /> ments the H. R.A. signs with the developers . <br /> The hearing was closed at 8: 45 P.M. <br /> William Bowerman. reported actions taken and recommendations made by the <br /> Planning Commission during their meeting held August 17 , 1982 , as <br /> reflected in -the minutes for that meeting. He indicated general agree- <br /> ment that a monument type sign which more closely resembles the type of <br /> signs recently accepted by the City would be more acceptable than the <br /> two free standing signs originally requested for identification of the <br /> Elmwood Lutheran Church., 3615 Chelmsford Road. . The drawings for .the <br /> new sign whichwould be 28 inches tall and seven feet wide, with an <br /> • eight foot wide , 12 inch high base were included in the agenda packet <br /> and were discussed by Reverend Joseph O. Valtinson, 5212 Pierce Street <br /> N.E. , who ispastor of the church. <br /> Reverend Valtinson told the Council he believes the signage is necessary <br /> to direct the people turning toward .his church which is set so far back <br /> from the adjoining streets that it is easily missed. The pastor noted <br /> that the signs he had originally requested were almost .identic.al .-to <br /> those which welcome people to St. Anthony, but said he agreed with the <br /> Planning Commission that a monument type sign would probably be much <br /> sturdier and easier to read and its rustic appearance would be more <br /> aesthetically pleasing. The sign would be constructed between two <br /> driveways into the church property, according to Reverend Valtinson , who <br /> agreed with Councilman Marks that the proposed sign would probably have <br /> been covered with snow last winter, but felt that there should be. no <br /> problems with seasons of normal snowfall. <br /> Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to grant <br /> a variance from the requirements of the City Sign Ordinance which would <br /> permit the two sided monument type sign to be erected, as proposed by <br /> Reverend Joseph O. Valtinson, to identify the Elmwood Lutheran Church, <br /> 3615 Chelmsford Road, finding, as did the Planning Commission, that the <br /> sign, as proposed,. meets the criteria set for granting variances for <br /> free standing signs because : <br /> • - granting the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare <br /> or. injurious to other property in the neighborhood or City . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.