Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Minutes of Regular Councl I Meeting <br />Page three <br /> <br />March 8, 1982 <br /> <br />Proposed Revision of City Code, Chapter 21, Provisions Re~ardln~ <br />Chan~eable Copy Signs <br />Council was referred to Planning Memo (1-25-82) re Proposed Revision <br />of Sign Ordinance Provisions Regarding Cha~geable Copy Signs, and <br />to Planning Commission recommendations (Minutes of 3/3/82). <br /> <br />McAllister moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council approve the <br />sign ordinance revisions relative to changeable copy signs, as <br />per Planning Memo of 1/25/82, subject to approval of Attorney <br />Lynden. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />(Lynden to prepare the revision for Ordinance Codification.) <br /> <br />Arden Oaks <br />Miller reported that, In conversation with Engineer Christoffersen, <br />It appears there is concern relative to a sight distance problem <br />as the road curves around the park. Miller asked if park grading <br />Is to be done by the developer, or the City; reported that, to date, <br />the developer has not directed his engineer to do more than street <br />grading. <br /> <br />Miller noted that If the steep ridge along the park, at the road, <br />Is pul led back onto the park site, a hi II situation would result; <br />suggested It may be preferable to have a level area in the park, <br />depending. on how the park will eventually be developed (unknown <br />at this time). Miller said It is desirable to create a better <br />sight line, but not consume the park's usable area. <br /> <br />In discussion, It was suggested that a portion of the road <br />could be raised a little to reduce the sight problem; park site <br />should probably be left as It Is unti I It Is known how park will <br />be utilized. It was the general concensus that minor adjustment <br />of the park site would be appropriate, but major grading should <br />be delayed until park Is developed. <br /> <br />Request for Exemption from Requirement to Connect to Municipal <br />Sanitary Sewer - Alan Potter, Pilgrim House <br />Alan Potter explained that a year ago the Pilgrim House organi- <br />zation requested an extension of time to make the sewer connec- <br />tion, because they planned to sell the property. Potter said the <br />organization Is small (16 adults and 4 - 6 children); building <br />Is utilized on Sundays for 9 months only, for about 2 hours; the <br />organization cannot afford the cost of connection which he esti- <br />mated to be $2,000t. Potter explained that, If they sel I the <br />property In the future, the sewer connection wi I I not be suitable <br />for some other use (housing development etc.); reported they had <br />to sel I a portion of the property to pay assessments; noted that <br />the sewer connection Is not a prudent Investment for the organi- <br />zation. <br /> <br />In discussion, the size of the parcel was queried - 1.14 acres. <br />It was noted that two sewer and two water connections are avili 1- <br />to the site. Potter said the septic tank and drainfleld serves <br />their needs; have not had any problems. It was noted that the <br />two-year sanitary sewer connection Is required by City Code, <br />Sect Ion 28-90; I tis not known whethe r Counc II has author I ty to <br />defer the connection. <br /> <br />It was stated by Potter that they are not aggresiveiy trytng to <br />sell the property at this time. <br /> <br />Council action was deferred pending Attorney Lynden's opinion. <br /> <br />REPORT OF VILLAGE TREASURER DONALD LAMB <br /> <br />Investments <br />March 2, 1982 - $100,000 8 13.15% Interest at <br />St. Paul, to mature 4/5/82. <br />March 6, 1982 - $___ . 8 13.50% interest <br />~o mature 6/16/62. <br /> <br />~'7;fn763 <br /> <br />Northwestern Bank <br /> <br />at Twin City Federal <br /> <br />-3- <br />