Laserfiche WebLink
-4- <br /> Lake Road should be a factor in consideration of the sign change <br /> at the .gas station. In .his .April .9th. memo Mr-. Berg had advised that, <br /> although the property where the existing sign is .located will probably <br /> be acquired by the .County for the rebuilding of 37th Avenue N.E. , <br /> perhaps in .1982, the sign atthat time would probably only be moved <br /> by the County and .the nominal . increase in value of this sign would <br /> not, be a factor .in. the moving .cost. Also, .any increase in value <br /> before probable acquisition ..should .not be a valid reason for denying <br /> the variance. . He .therefore recommended . approval of the variance <br /> for a change..in image .for the sign. <br /> Motion by Mr. Peterson and seconded by Mr. Sopcinski to recommend <br /> the Council grant ..the owners of the .Fas Gas station at 3001 . - 37th <br /> Avenue N.E.. -permission .to :use their existing 6 x 6 foot freestanding <br /> sign for the proposed price cost identification, with the understanding <br /> the total area square .footage will remain 36 square feet .as has existed <br /> since 1973 but .will now allow the station to .advertise the current <br /> four figure gasoline price. ' _In recommending approval of the nec- <br /> essary variance the -Commission . is asking into consideration the recent <br /> Commission and Council .action on the MICO'.price identification sign <br /> and finds denying the variance may create a hardship for Fas Gas <br /> who can not now .use the .standard additional price numbers in their <br /> existing sign. <br /> Motion carried unanimously. <br /> • There was a .lengthy discussion .of the .extent .of the City's role in <br /> developing the alternatives proposed in the Comprehensive Plan for <br /> the redevelopment of the Kenzie-.Terrace commercial area. Mr. Bowerman <br /> and Mrs. Makowske urged caution on the City ' s part before committing <br /> City funds for effecting changes. in the area where "even the owners <br /> don' t seem interested in salvaging" . Mr.' Jones and Mr. Fornell saw <br /> the City as having to provide the tools for any redevelopment, if <br /> any is to -occur, later, when themoney markets opens. They saw <br /> an advantage for the City to develop goals and plans to present to a <br /> developer rather then waiting to react to a specific proposal <br /> from a developer. Mr,. Peterson agreed .saying he thought at least <br /> the condition .of the soil should be determined to decide whether any <br /> major redevelopment is feasible for the area. <br /> Mr. Enrooth left at - 9 : 35 P.M. <br /> Mr. Sopcinski .saw the plan as only a set of guidelines which will <br /> probably be out of date before they are even approved. He wanted <br /> as much attention devoted to other problems detailed in the Plan for <br /> the City and thought the Plan should be utilized as a means of <br /> attacking foreseeable problems .in all areas. <br /> The _Commission had been .provided copies of Mr. Berg' s comments regarding <br /> Ramsey County' s .Comprehensive Plan. He reported a meeting, to further <br /> discuss the plan, was .scheduled with .the •Ramsey County Department of <br /> Public Works in the St. Anthony. .City Hall April 23rd, and that he <br /> would present another -report to .the Commission after that meeting. <br /> Hennepin County' s response to the City's Comprehensive Plan was <br />