Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-3- <br /> <br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br /> <br />September 8, 1980 <br /> <br />After discussion, it was the concensus of Council that <br /> <br />1) "political signs", be permitted as proposed in Section III A-ld <br />(2) of the ordinance draft. <br /> <br />2) "flag poles" Section IIIA-3g be approved as proposed in the <br />original draft. <br /> <br />3) "area identification signs" be approved; Section V Schedule of <br />District Provisions be amended to legitimize area identification <br />signs if ownership and maintenance can be established. (Lynden <br />to amend ordinance draft accordingly). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4) "billboards", Section VI-D "Highway Advertising District" be <br />approved as proposed in ordinance draft. <br /> <br />Council authorized Attorney Lynden to put draft in ordinance form for <br />Council's second and final reading. <br /> <br />REPORT OP VILLAGE PLANNER ORLYN MILLER <br /> <br />Case No. 80-33, Signage Approval for Land O'Lakes Corporate Offices <br /> <br />Miller referred to transparency indicating the four sign locations pro- <br />posed; described the signage as one primary identification sign at the <br />Lexington Ave. entrance, a secondary identification/directional sign <br />at the County Road F entrance and two directional signs (one at County <br />Rd. F and one within the site). Miller noticed that the Lexington <br />identification sign, as proposed, will require a 10' setback variance <br />(lS' from property line) in order to save existing trees. <br /> <br />Wingert moved, seconded by Hanson, that Council approve the Land O'Lakes <br />signage, including the 10' setback variance for the primary identifi- <br />cation sign. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Case No.80-34, Rezoning of Property Ad1acent to Town Crier from 1-2 to <br />B-2 <br />Council was referred to Planner Report of 8-27-80 and to recommendations <br />of the Planning Commission (Minutes of 9-3-80). <br /> <br />Miller displayed a transparency of the proposed 2.8 acre parcel proposed <br />to be rezoned from 1-2 to B-2; noted that ownership of the parcel will <br />remain in George Reiling, as does the Town Crier parcel to the east. <br />Miller reported that the Planning Commission recommends that a quality <br />motel is an acceptable use of the land and recommends the rezoning <br />simultaneously with issuance of a Building Permit for the motel; recom- <br />men's that Council initiate rezoning of the Town Crier parcel to B-2; <br />referred Council to a transparency of the proposed motel site plan which <br />shows the level of development the spplicant proposes to pursue. <br /> <br />Edmund Chute, applicant for the rezoning, described the site as excellent <br />for en economy motel; motel will provide medium priced rooms which would <br />be beneficial to the industrial area; sited next to a family style <br />restaurant he said would be advsntageous to both the restaurant and the <br />motel. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Fred Chute (brother) said he currently manages the Cricket Inn in <br />Roseville, explained that the proposed motel will provide rooms at about <br />3/4 price of full-service hotels; hotel will have comfortable rooms with <br />out the frills. Chute said the motel architect will be Edward Kinney <br />(Houston), the architect for the Minneapolis Hilton; exterior of the <br />motel will be an attractive brick with bronze glass windows; and is <br />proposed as a staged project (66 rooms initially with a SDbsequent ex- <br />pansion to 132 rooms). <br /> <br />Crichton asked if the Applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Plan State- <br />ment demonstrating that the proposal ia equal to or better than the plan. <br />(Ord. 213. Section VIII B.d.) answer was "no", not received to date. <br /> <br />Reiling advised that he does not own the Town Crier, but feels sure the <br />owners will concur with rezoning of the parcel to B-2. <br />