Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />P ag e 4 <br /> <br />City Council Minutes <br />September 8. 1986 <br /> <br />Discussion was carried on regarding the specific sections of the burning <br />permit. The following concerns were noted: <br /> <br />(1) way to prevent all ash from being disposed of in Elk River <br /> <br />(2) require both a clay and vinyl liner <br /> <br />(3) way to assure that City be notified of violation of any of Permit <br />conditions <br /> <br />(4) remedy for violation comment. Council felt it should be worded if <br />dioxin limits are exceeded. and/or if the burn temperature falls <br />below 1800 degrees. then shut down should occur and not stating <br />that if both conditions are needed for shut down. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER TRALLE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SUBMIT THE <br />COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF TO THE MPCA. <br />COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br /> <br />7 . Signs <br /> <br />A. Bank of Elk River Application for Sign <br /> <br />Mr. Rohlf explained that the Bank of Elk River is requesting that they <br />be allowed to place a sign at the new plaza office which would be a 25 <br />foot high. 3 face. triangular. plylon sign. 48 square feet per face. <br />Mr. Rohlf noted that the orginal site plan. which was reviewed and <br />approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. shows a pylon <br />sign. and further. that the Planning Commission unaninimously <br />recommended approval of the sign request as presented. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM MOVED TO APPROVE THE SIGN REQUEST BY THE BANK OF <br />ELK RIVER AS PRESENTED. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE <br />MOTION PASSED 4-0. <br /> <br />B. Elk River Mall Sign Policy <br /> <br />Mr. Daniel Raustadt of Daniel Sign Company. was present to represent <br />owners of the Elk River Mall. <br /> <br />Mr. Rohlf explained that they were requesting approval of the attached <br />Sign Criteria so that the Mall could control their signs themselves <br />without having to obtain approval from the Planning Commission and <br />City Council for each individual sign. as the PUD ordinance currently <br />states. Mr. Rohlf further explained that the Planning Commission <br />recommended approval of the proposal. adding the following criteria: <br />(1) no flashing signs. (2) no banners. (3) no temporary signs. (4) 10 <br />days for repairs. rather than 30 days. and (5) include anchor <br />tennants to follow criteria. <br />