8A - Minutes 051707 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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