pm_720405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

- 5- Recommendation Mr. Membrez Moved and Mrs. Demos Seconded, that the Commission recommend approval of the "Kline Industrial Park" preliminary plat at 2800 Long Lake Road, with the condition that the property owner execute an agree- ment with the Village indicating they will not contest or claim damages for the right-of-way required on the south side of County Road C-2 re- sulting from the construction of a bridge over 35W at C-2. Roll Call, Ayes: G. Johnson, V. Johnson, Membrez, Demos, Eagles, Kellett and Pope. Nays: None. Planning File 676 - Viola Kloskin request for vacation of Becklyn Court in "Vi's Lakeshore Addition" Presentation Mr. John Daubney, attorney representing the applicant, indicated that the plat of "Vi's Lakeshore Addition" had previously been approved by the Planning Commission and the Council. The plat had incorporated a private road easement to serve the three lakeshore lots in the interior of the plat. However, the Ramsey County Plat Commission would not approve the plat because all lots did not front and have access on a public street. Therefore, the plat did incorporate a dedicated street and was filed with the County. This vacation would thus accomplish what had previously been proposed and that is to have the street as a private drive. Recommendation Mr. Membrez Moved and Mr. G. Johnson Seconded, that the Commission re- commend approval of Viola K1oskin's request for vacation of Becklyn Court in "Vi's Lakeshore Addition". Roll Call, Ayes: G. Johnson, V. Johnson, Membrez, Demos, Eagles, Kellett and Pope. Nays: None. Planning File 677 - Nips, Inc. request for special use permit and variance to sign height, size and setback at 2775 North Snelling Presentation Bill Yaeger, Krans-Anderson Construction Company, represented the appli- cant and indicated that McDonald's proposes to construct a new restaurant behind the existing structure and when the new building is completed to tear down the existing building. In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance to the sign height, size and setback for the existing sign at the front of the property. Discussion Mr. Membrez indicated that the proposed building was a great improvemBnt over the existing structure. He also felt that in order to see the sign that it needed to remain in its present position and he was, therefore, in favor of the variances. Mr. Eagles expressed concern over the fact that the sign is so close to the property line 'and indicated that perhaps it could be set back a few more feet and therefore require a smaller variance. Mr. V. Johnson indicated that he shared the same concern.