My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 10-12-1987
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
CC 10-12-1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:08:08 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 2:51:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
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
<br /> , <br /> . MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday, October 12, 1987, 7:30 p.m. - Village Hall <br /> CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn <br /> called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. <br /> ROLL CALL The roll being called the following members were <br /> present: Mayor Robert Woodburn, Councilmembers Nancy <br /> . Hansen, Gary Peck, and Jeanne Winiecki. Absent: Councilmember Thomas Sather. <br /> Also present: Attorney James Lynden, Planner Orlyn Miller, Public Works <br /> Supervisor Robert Raddatz, Clerk Administrator Patricia Morrison and Deputy <br /> Clerk Catherine Iago. <br /> APPROVE MINUTES Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve <br /> the minutes of the Regular meeting of September 28, <br /> 1987 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0 ) <br /> BUSINESS FROM FLOOR None. <br /> RES #87-65; NOV. Doug Hill, representing the Epilepsy Foundation of <br /> EPILEPSY MONTH Minnesota, appeared before the Council to request <br /> their support in proclaiming the month of November as <br /> Epilepsy month in the City of Arden Hills. <br /> Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve <br /> Resolution No. 87-65; PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER TO BE EPILEPSY MONTH IN <br /> THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) <br /> CASE #87-30; SUP ROOF Council was referred to Planner's report of 9/28/87 <br /> . SIGNS, 3628 CONNELLY, and Planning Commission minutes of 10/7/87, <br /> TRANS. ELECTRONICS recommending approval of one rooftop sign, with <br /> conditions. <br /> Planner Hiller reviewed the background of the business and the relationship of <br /> the applicant's building on Connelly St. to other buildings in the area. He <br /> explained that the rooftop sign would extend approximatley 8-1/2 ft. above the <br /> roof, as proposed, and sign size would meet current code requirements. Miller <br /> noted that the Commission determined that a roof sign facing in a southerly <br /> direction would be beneficial, however, a westerly facing sign on the roof <br /> would not be visible, therefore only one should be permitted. <br /> The Planner discussed the continuance of the mansard roof treatment on the <br /> building for aesthetics; he noted that the CommissiOQ had discussed placement <br /> of the sign on the building or on the mansard roof; the applicant advised that <br /> a sign located on the building itself would not be beneficial and noted that <br /> signs placed on mansard roofs usually become unattractive due to staining. <br /> Miller pointed out that a free standing sign of 16 ft. would be permitted <br /> without SUP, however, a setback variance would be necessary. He commented that <br /> if the sign were kept flush with the roof of the building, rather than mounted <br /> on the proposed frame, it would be possible to achieve close to 16 ft. in <br /> . height, which is the current height requirement for free-standing signs. <br /> Council asked for the Planner's opinion relative to increased visibility of the <br /> sign if the 3 ft. 6 in. mounting were utilized; Hiller advised that visibility <br /> would be improved but not significantly increased; he explained that the <br /> problem from eastbound traffic is more a narrow window of vision rather than <br /> the height factor. <br /> Mr. Petersen, Transportation Electronics, was present to answer any Council <br /> questions. <br /> CounciImember Peck questioned if the SUP would cease when the applicant vacates <br /> the property. <br /> Miller advised that normally the SUP is tied to the land, rather than the <br /> business, however, a stipulation could included be in the SUP to terminate the <br /> sign when the business vacates the property. Attorney Lynden agreed. <br /> Council discussed the height of the sign, placement of the sign off the <br /> premises, and free-standing sign versus rooftop placement. <br /> Miller noted that there is no provision in the sign ordinance for placement of <br /> . the sign off the premises. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.