Laserfiche WebLink
City Council ~finutes Page 3 <br />July 19, 2004 <br /> <br /> due to problems with the existing cover shifting. He stated the cost for sludge removal and <br /> disposal during construction is $35,000 at the landfill and $45,000 at the Met Council. <br /> <br />MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN AND SECONDED BY <br />COUNCILMEMBER TVEITE TO APPROVE THE DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE <br />USING THE LANDFILL OPTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. <br /> <br />5.4. <br /> <br />Consider Resolution Providing for the Sale of $940,000 Electric Revenue Bonds, Series <br />2004A <br /> <br />Finance Director Lori Johnson stated Elk River Municipal Utilities requested the city to <br />issue Electric Revenue Bonds for electric system improvements, as the consortium is not <br />prepared to issue bonds at this time. <br /> <br />MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER KUESTER AND SECONDED BY <br />COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 04-57 PROVIDING <br />FOR THE SALE OF $940,000 ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2004A. <br />MOTION CARRIED 5-0. <br /> <br />6.1. <br /> <br />Request by Lafayette Woods Homeowners Association for Variance to Allow 2na <br /> <br />Development Sign, Public Hearing-Case No. V 04-05 <br /> <br />Senior Planner Scott Harlicker submitted the staff report. Mr. Harlicker stated that the <br />applicant is requesting a variance to the sign ordinance to allow for a second development <br />sign. He reviewed the five conditions that must be met in order to grant a variance and <br />stated the applicant does not meet these conditions. <br /> <br />Mayor I~dinzing opened the public hearing. <br /> <br />Anthony Traverse, 19370 Upland Street-Stated that other developments don't need more <br />signs as they don't have two separate main entrances off of busy streets. He stated that <br />Trout Brook development has two entrances and a sign at each entrance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dietz questioned why Trout Brook has more than one development <br />identification sign and Mr. Harlicker stated the Trout Brook development was zoned <br />Planned Unit Development and the signs were approved as part of the project. <br /> <br />John Gahl, 12502 194th Lane-Stated the sign would be visible from County Road 1. He <br />stated people have trouble locating the unsigned entrance to the development and felt that it <br />would be safer to have a sign marking the entrance. <br /> <br />Mayor Kflinzing closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kuester stated the ordinance should be changed to allow more than one <br />development identification sign under the condition that there is more than one major <br />entrance into a development. <br /> <br />Councilmember Tveite and Motin concurred. <br /> <br />MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER KUESTER AND SECONDED BY <br />COUNCILMEMBER TVEITE TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO <br />ALLOW A SECOND DEVELOPMENT SIGN BASED ON THE FINDINGS <br /> <br /> <br />