Laserfiche WebLink
Applicants state that Rob VanValkenburg approached them to see if they would do this. They <br /> were not aware of any conditions on the property. <br /> Discussion on whether or not this application should have been accepted. <br /> Motion by Williams to deny the request based on the following findings: <br /> i. The application meets the definition of the airport,which is an excluded use. <br /> 2. Condition 12 of the Crafter's Mall CUP prohibits this additional use. <br /> Seconded by Derksen. Passed unanimously. <br /> Motion by Williams to recommend to the City Council that the application fee be <br /> refunded, less the cost to publicize the hearing. Seconded by Pederson. Passed 5-1 <br /> (Adams opposed). <br /> Discussion on directing staff to notify the owner of the property of the Commission's concerns <br /> with the direction that development of this property is going. Staff so directed. <br /> Variance for a Sign Exceeding the Height Limit, Lonesome Cottage,Application 07-16 <br /> Marohn reviews the Staff Report. <br /> Brandon Anderson,applicant,present, states that they are asking for 96 square feet, not 90 as <br /> stated in the staff report. States that his property is directly on the line between the speed zones <br /> and most traffic is traveling at a higher speed. There is a nine foot difference in height between <br /> their property and the highway,so their sign would be only one foot above the highway. They <br /> are competing with the Oasis sign,which is much larger. <br /> Ann Hutchings, Pequot Lakes,states that there was a request for a variance on the bank a while <br /> back where she submitted a letter. States that there is a lot of attention given to signs and,with <br /> all the congestion and pedestrian traffic, and this is a safety issue. The Oasis sign is quite large <br /> and bright,but this should not allow other signs to compete with it. It is a safety issue. <br /> Williams asks whether or not promises were given from the previous owner as to be able to <br /> replace the existing sign. <br /> Anderson states there were no promises made. <br /> Woog asks if there is room for more signage on the building. <br /> Anderson indicates that they would be able to,but it would not have the impact of a direct <br /> highway sign. <br /> Woog asks if the existing sign conforms. Discussion that it would. <br /> Pederson asks if the flagpole is part of the sign and if it counts with the height? <br /> Discussion. Marohn recommends that the flag not be an issue as the City has not regulated <br /> them historically. <br /> Discussion of the need of the sign. Anderson states that he could live with the height limitation, <br /> but feels he needs a bigger sign due to the signs adjacent to the property. <br />