Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION - February 19 , 1991 <br /> 6 <br /> 1 request would be heard by the City Council at 7 : 30 p.m. <br /> 2 February 26 , 1991 . <br /> 3 <br /> 4 VII . MISCELLANEOUS . <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Assistant to the City Manager VanderHeyden drew the <br /> 7 Commission ' s attention to the absence of covers on their <br /> 8 information packets , and cited the absence as an example <br /> 9 of the City' s efforts to save money in every way <br /> 10 possible , primarily due to a reduction of $30 , 000 in <br /> 11 -money from the State of Minnesota, with further <br /> 12 reductions in funds anticipated. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 She then presented to the Commissioners a Planning <br /> 15 Commission roster, and asked them to update their <br /> 16 addresses and telephone numbers if necessary. This <br /> 17 roster could then be used by the Commissioners to <br /> 18 contact each other directly, rather than using the City <br /> 19 offices as an intermediary. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 VanderHeyden informed the Commissioners that all <br /> 22 Planning Commission matters would be heard by the City <br /> 23 Council at their second meeting following the Commission <br /> 24 hearing rather than their meeting immediately following <br /> 25 the Commission hearing. This will generally be the <br /> 26 first rather than the second Council meeting of the <br /> 27 month. The change is being made because of the <br /> 28 difficulty recording secretaries have experienced in <br /> 29 providing minutes on short turnaround time . This <br /> 30 schedule will commence with the next Planning Commission <br /> 31 meeting to be held. VanderHeyden presented the <br /> 32 Commission with a schedule of deadlines for submission <br /> 33 of matters to the Planning Commission and their <br /> 34 subsequent consideration by the City Council . <br /> 35 <br /> 36 VanderHeyden informed the Commission that Autotrack had <br /> 37 chained a temporary sign to their building despite <br /> 38 requests by the City that the owner remove the sign and <br /> 39 apply for a variance in accordance with approved <br /> 40 procedures . She stated that she and City Manager Tom <br /> 41 Burt had recently met with owner, Dan Kogel , to discuss <br /> 42 his signage needs , and made it clear to Mr. Kogel that <br /> 43 he is hurting his changes for a variance request <br /> 44 approval by leaving the unauthorized sign in place. Mr . <br /> 45 Kogel expressed to Burt and VanderHeyden his need for <br /> 46 additional signage because his business is partially <br /> 47 obscured by the Berger Transfer building. VanderHeyden <br /> 48 stated that the police chief will issue a ticket to the <br /> 49 owner the day following this meeting if the sign is <br /> 50 still in place . The sign cannot be removed by the City <br />