Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 6 <br /> <br />City Council Minutes <br />May 15. 1989 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />5.3. Consider Sign Variance Security Federal/Public hearing <br /> <br />Steve Bjork indicated that Security Financial has been before the <br />Planning Commission on two separate occasions to address a sign variance <br />request. He indicated that the Planning Commission had recommended <br />denial on both occasions and that Security Financial had requested. once <br />again. to appear before the Planning Commission on February 28. <br />1989. <br /> <br />Mary Eberley. Planning Commission Representative. stated that because the <br />applicant did not appear before the Planning Commission at the February <br />28. 1989. meeting. the Planning Commission maintained their original <br />motion to deny the variance request. She further indicated that <br />originally the petition was measured against the five standards required <br />for a variance and the Planning Commission recommended denial due to the <br />variance request not meeting these five standards. <br /> <br />Mayor Tralle opened the public hearing. There being nobody for or <br />against the matter. Mayor Tralle closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER <br />VARIANCE FROM <br />FACTS: <br /> <br />HOLMGREN <br />SECURITY <br /> <br />MOVED TO <br />FINANCIAL <br /> <br />DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A SIGN <br />BECAUSE OF THE,FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />1. THAT THERE WAS NO UNDUE HARD SHIP CAUSED TO THE PETITIONER. <br /> <br />2. THAT THERE WERE NO UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS SITUATION. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />THAT THE <br />FEDERAL <br /> <br />APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT DEPRIVE SECURITY <br />OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME DI STRI CT . <br /> <br />4. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE REQUEST WOULD CAUSE A SAFETY QUESTION AND <br />THAT IT WAS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE CITY CODE. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. <br /> <br />5.4. Building and Zoning Discussion Items <br /> <br />Stephen Rohlf. Building and Zoning Administrator. indicated that he <br />received three letters from Planning Commission members expressing their <br />appreciation to the Council for allowing them to attend the Planning <br />Conference. <br /> <br />The Building and Zoning Administrator discussed with the Council a <br />handout he had drafted labled "Planning and Zoning Functions." He <br />indicated the handout explains the functions. the procedures. and the <br />process which must be followed for zoning items. The Building and Zoning <br />Administrator stated that the handout would be available to the public at <br />Council and Planning meetings. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />The Building and Zoning Administrator discussed with the Council several <br />items which the Planning Commission had requested his staff to research. <br />The first item which Mr. Rohlf discussed was the fact that Minnesota <br />State Statute does not allow an economic hardship as a cause for a <br />variance. <br />