Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council Proceedings <br />City of New ~ighton <br />-April ,_13, I_ <br /> <br />.,. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />-Motion by Hardt, seconded by Fisher to waive reading of <br />the ordinance and to hold first reading on the ordinance <br />Motion by Werdouschegg, seconded by Fisher to amend <br />Section 705:10 of the proposed ordinance to provide that <br />the hours of operation be the same as in New Brighton's <br />current snowmobile ordinance. <br />Motion by Hardt, seconded by Werdouschegg to limit <br />debate on the snowmobile ordinance to 8:45 <br />5 ayes - 0 nayes - carried <br /> <br />Motion on the amendment to Section 705:10 <br />5 ayes - 0 nayes - carried <br />Motion by Hardt, seconded by Fisher to amend <br />Section 705:05 to prohibit operation within 150 feet of <br />any residential building except when snowmobile is traveling <br />to and from a designated area and the operators property. <br />5 ayes - 0 nayes - carried <br />Motion by Werdouschegg, seconded by Hardt to amend <br />Section 705:15 to provide a maximum speed limit of <br />8 miles per hour on any street and 8 miles per hour <br />within 150 feet of any fisherman, fishhouse, pedestrian, <br />skiing area, skater, skating rink, sliding area, ski tow <br />area or other areas where such operation would conflict <br />with or endanger other persons or property <br />3 ayes - 2 nayes (Senden, Bromander) - carried <br />Vote on main motion as amended <br />5 ayes - 0 nayes - carried <br /> <br />Motion by Hardt, seconded by Fisher to receive <br />administrative report re: drainage problem on <br />Eastman Drive <br />5 ayes - 0 nayes - carried <br />Motion by Hardt, seconded by Senden to :table <br />action indefinitely. <br />4 ayes - 1 naye (~erdouschegg) - carried <br /> <br />Drainage <br />Problem <br />Eastman Dr. <br /> <br />Public Heatinqs <br />Attorney stated hearing was properly called <br />The Planner presented his report and the <br />Planning Commission recommendations. <br />Mark Clark, applicant, stated he did not believe <br />the ordinance dealt with his sign and questioned why it <br />was illegal. He stated his building is setback 140 <br />feet from 5th Avenue and therefore required a large <br />sign. He stated willingness to consider reducing <br />other signage on his property. <br /> <br />~-_._~ <br />15r~ <br /> <br />\...~--- <br /> <br />Councilman Werdouschegg stated that the ordinance requires <br />a sign plan in instances of this nature. He stated that <br />