10-10-2006 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 10, 2006 --------------------------- Lonny Lieder, 23710 141 Avenue North, Rogers, MN -Stated he developed the Birchview plat. He was concerned with the location of the proposed road extension. He felt that the proper location for the road would be west of the wetland, and rrudway on the existing 207th Avenue. Mr. Barnhart stated that these are some of the issues they need to resolve, since there is very limited access to County Road 33. He expressed apologies to those residents in attendance who were expecting a full presentation of the request. Kristi Johann, 2291 132nd Lane, Blaine, MN -Stated she is the owner of Lot 3, Block 1 in the Birchview subdivision. She had concerns regarding where the road would go through Birchview and impacts of safety of the children in this area. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REQUEST BY JEFF WERNER FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CRANBERRY RIDGE, CASE NO. P 06-15 TO THE DECEMBER 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.2. Request by City of Elk River for An Ordinance Amendment to Section 30-851 Regarding Siens, Public Hearing -Case No. OA 06-02 Planner Chris Leeseberg provided an update on progress to date for an ordinance amendment to address temporary/portable signs. He noted that through the Chamber of Commerce, 250 business owners were notified of the September 26th workshop discussion of the proposed ordinance language changes. Approximately 14 E-mail responses were received, and one business owner was in attendance. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed staff's recommendation to revise the existing ordinance. Vice Chair Stevens opened the public hearing. Tami Weeks, owner of The Jungle hair salon, 934 Highway 10 -Questioned why no other business owners were in attendance at tonight's meeting. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the public hearing was published in the Star News. She asked why the ordinance amendment was initiated. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the amendment was a result of the concerns of the City Council, Planning Commission, staff and complaints from the public. Ms. Weeks questioned why the City uses temporary signs, if they are negative. Mr. Leeseberg stated they are allowed by City ordinance. Ms. Weeks asked why she is not allowed to place signs in the MnDOT right of way. Mr. Barnhart stated that the City cannot issue a permit for signs in MnDOT right of way, and the City has the right to remove signs that are placed there. Mr. Leeseberg noted that most signs in the MnDOT right of way are illegal, except for traffic safety signage. Jeff Gongoll, representing the Chamber of Commerce, 509 Highway 10 -Stated that the Chamber is supported of clarification of the definition of temporary/portable signs. He stated that the general consensus of the Chamber members who responded to a possible ban of temporary signs was very negative, as evidenced in the 14 E-mails which were included in the Commission's packets. Mr. Gongoll stated he felt Exhibit C was a good representation of the discussion at the September 26th workshop. He felt limiting the number of days to 30 would be onerous, and that 90 days to would be acceptable with no limit on the number of