Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 3 <br /> <br />City Council Minutes <br />August 17. 1987 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Jack Lawrence of Signcrafters requested the Council to consider at least <br />a 35' high pylon sign to show above the 30 foot evergreens. <br /> <br />Mayor Gunkel stated that Pamida and Coast to Coast both requested free- <br />standing signs but were denied. <br /> <br />Mr. Lawrence <br />does stand <br /> <br />stated that Big Wheel is away from the shopping center and <br />by itself and feels a freestanding sign should be allowed. <br /> <br />Stewart Wilson. Planning Commission Representative. stated that the <br />Planning Commission recommended approval of the sign request as proposed. <br />He indicated the Planning Commission felt there was a distinction between <br />the request for a pylon sign by Big Wheel in comparison to other requests <br />in the PUD. He stated Big Wheel was isolated from the other businesses. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGNAGE REQUESTED BY BIG WHEEL <br />AUTO WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE FREE-STANDING SIGN BE NO MORE THAN 35 <br />FEET IN HEIGHT; THAT THE SIGNS ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING NOT BE ABOVE THE <br />PARAPET OF THE ROOF; AND THAT THE FREE-STANDING SIGN IS BEING ALLOWED DUE <br />TO THE UNIQUE SITUATION OF THE BIG WHEEL LOT AND BUILDING WITHIN THE ELK <br />RIVER PLAZA PUD. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Councilmember Schuldt indicated that due to the fact that Coast to Coast <br />was denied a free-standing sign. he would be against the request for Big <br />Wheel's free-standing sign. <br /> <br />THE MOTION CARRIED 3-1. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION. <br /> <br />6.16.0rdinance Amendment repealing Ordinance 87-21 <br /> <br />Greg Korstad. City Attorney. stated that an Ordinance repealing Ordinance <br />87-21 has been advertised for public hearing. He further indicated that <br />the advertised ordinance was reviewed by the Planning Commission. He <br />noted the Planning Commission has recommended that the Ordinance be <br />redrafted and stated he would prepare a new draft of the ordinance. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT <br />REPEALING ORDINANCE 87-21 UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER 28, 1987 CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED <br />4-0. <br /> <br />6.2. Administrative Subdivision Request by John Oliver and K.P. Caswell Jr. <br />Public Hearing <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mayor Gunkel explained that Mr. John Oliver and Mr. Caswell. Jr. are <br />requesting an administrative subdivision to split an approximately 11.28 <br />acre parcel of property into two lots; the western lot to be 6.28 acres <br />and the eastern lot 5 acres. She indicated the property is in an I-1/ <br />light industrial zoned district and both lots meet the minimum lot size <br />requirements. <br />