Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF ST, ANTHONY <br /> COUNCIL MINUTES <br /> June 24, 1975 <br /> The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Miedtke. <br /> The following were present for roll call: Sauer, Stauffer, Miedtke, Haik. <br /> Absent: Sundland <br /> Also present: Jerry Dulgar, City Manager <br /> Larry Vickrey, City Attorney <br /> Jim Fornell, Adm. Asst. <br /> The following corrections were made to the minutes of the June 10, 1975 Council <br /> meeting: <br /> Page 1, para. t: Changes made in the minutes should be labeled "corrections" <br /> not "amendments". <br /> Page 1, para. 1: Corrections to page 3 of the May 27th Council meeting-- <br /> Add "nor in the conditional uses for that area" following ". , .areas around <br /> zoned R-i_ or R-2". <br /> Page 3, para. 5: Add "when that stretch of walkway should be included as an <br /> alternate to Sidewalk Project 1975-001" following". . .plans for that corner <br /> are available". <br /> Page 4, para. 2: "TAP" should be identified as "Taxpayers Association to <br /> • Protect 29th Avenue". <br /> Page 4, para. 6: Add to Gerhardt 'Bentler's statement "and also that the <br /> proposed cu-1--de--sac would increase the traffic on other city streets". <br /> Page 8, para. 7: Councilman Stauffer voted "Aye" rather than "Nay" on the <br /> motion to accept District #282 proposal. <br /> Motion by Councilman Haik and seconded by Councilman Sauer to approve the <br /> minutes of June 10 as corrected. <br /> Motion carried unanimously. <br /> Mr. Wil Johnson of the Planning Board appeared to present the recommendations <br /> of the Board as contained in the minutes of their meeting of June 17, 1975• <br /> Hirst presented the Board's recommendation of the signage requested for the <br /> Metropolitan Flea Market and said the Board based its approval of granting a <br /> variance to the sign ordinance on their feeling that the request met the <br /> conditions under Section 430.45, Subd. 3 of Para. 1 which call for a variance <br /> for a "unique parcel of land under a condition which is not applicable to <br /> another parcel of land" because the building is "landlocked" and hard to see. <br /> The Board also felt the amount of signage allowed by the ordinance is not <br /> proportionately scaled to the size of the building (approximately 1-00.,000 sq, ft) <br /> or to the more than 300 dealers it would house. <br /> • The discussion which followed centered on the 720 sq, ft. sign which was on the <br /> top of the building when Mr. & Mrs. Wm. Olson leased it and which they felt <br /> became "an embarassment to them" when their identification was painted out at <br /> City direction. I <br />