|
<br />~-
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />-f
<br />
<br />'.
<br />
<br />, MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
<br />Monday, April 11, 1988, 7:30 p.m. - Village Hall
<br />
<br />CALL TO ORDER
<br />
<br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn
<br />called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
<br />
<br />ROLL CALL The roll being called the following members were present:
<br />Mayor Robert Woodburn, Councilmembers Nancy Hansen, Gary
<br />Peck, and Jeanne Winiecki. Absent: Councilmember Thomas Sather. Also present:
<br />Planner John Bergly, Engineer Barry Peters, Public Works Supervisor Robert
<br />Raddatz, Clerk Administrator Patricia Morrison and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago.
<br />
<br />APPROVE MINUTES
<br />
<br />Peck moved, seconded by Hansen, that Council approve the
<br />Minutes of the March 28, 1988, Regular Council Meeting,
<br />as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0)
<br />
<br />BUSINESS FROM FLOOR Paul Malone, 1485 Dawn Circle, reported on the Recycling
<br />Program. He advised Council approximately 30% of the
<br />households in Arden Hills are recycling, and, if the recycling figures continue
<br />to increase at the current rate, the City should exceed the goal of 3,052 tons
<br />per year. Malone also reported on the response to the recycling containers, which
<br />were offered for sale in the recycling brochure sent to Arden Hill residents. He
<br />advised Council the brochure, including the information regarding containers,
<br />would be sent again in late April of this year.
<br />
<br />ORD. AMENDMENT;
<br />EMPLOYEE VACATION
<br />ORDINANCE No. 257
<br />
<br />Council was referred to the Attorney's draft of an
<br />Ordinance amending Section 19.58 of the Arden Hills
<br />Code; pertaining to employee vacation leave benefits.
<br />
<br />Mayor Woodburn read the Ordinance by title.
<br />
<br />The Clerk Administrator explained the amendment would increase the rate of
<br />vacation leave accrual for non-union employees so that it would coincide with the
<br />accrual rate for union employees, as per the 1988 contract.
<br />
<br />Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve the
<br />Introduction by Title of Ordinance No. 257, AMENDING SECTION 19.58 OF ARDEN HILLS
<br />CODE BY CHANGING SUBSECTION (e) THEREOF AND BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION (f)
<br />THERETO. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0)
<br />
<br />REPORT OF PLANNER
<br />
<br />CASE #88-06; SIGN
<br />HEIGHT VARIANCE,
<br />H1VYS. 1-694 & I-35W,
<br />
<br />Council was referred to the Planner's report of 4/6/88,
<br />regarding an application for a Sign Height Variance for
<br />an outdoor advertising sign located at I-35W and 1-694.
<br />
<br />Planner Bergly also referred Council to the Board of Appeals Minutes of 3/24/88:
<br />recommending denial of the variance request due to the fact the existing sign has
<br />excellent visibility from the east and westbound lanes of 1-694; the members
<br />concurred that the sign's effectiveness would not be increased with the
<br />additional 9-ft. height; and, the Board members opposed could not identify any
<br />topographic hardship. (3-1 vote)
<br />
<br />Council was also referred to the Planning Commission Minutes of 4/6/88,
<br />recommending denial, based on no findings of a hardship. (5-4 vote)
<br />
<br />Michael Cronin, representing Naegele Advertising, was present to request approval
<br />of the application. He stated it was the opinion of the Naegele Company the
<br />request is a minor change that would not negatively impact the area. Cronin
<br />advised Council that customers have reported the view of the sign, from the
<br />easterly direction, is low and they would prefer the sign higher.
<br />
<br />Councilmember Winiecki stated outdoor advertising signs are becoming more visible
<br />with extensions of the signs beyond the normal dimensions and "gimmicks", such as
<br />smoking, lighting, and flashing objects. It was her opinion the sign, as it
<br />exists has sufficient visibility and she would object to the increased height due
<br />to public safety factors. Councilmember Hansen agreed the current sign has
<br />excellent visibility.
<br />
<br />Moved by Winiecki, seconded by Hansen, that Council deny
<br />the Variance application, Case #88-06, Sign Height Variance, Highways 1-35W and
<br />1-694, Naegele Advertising Company, due to public safety factors, no identifiable
<br />hardship and the fact that the existing sign has excellent visibility. Motion
<br />carried unanimously. (4-0)
<br />
|