Laserfiche WebLink
11 Yit~CeE?C]1n~5 J <br />of New Bri~~hton - <br />~h 8, 1977 <br /><- - - <br />,;:; <br />z-Public Hearings <br />Assistant City .Attorney stated the hearing was <br />properly called.. VN-170 Dahlke <br />The City Planner reviewed the planning report and- " <br />Planning Commission recommendations - 7:59 to <br />Councilman Werdouschegg inquired as to what the- 8:25 <br />footage was along I-35W and I-b94. <br />-The Planner indicated .that he-did not havethat <br />figure available; however, in-order to make the <br />property conforming as to the billboards., they all would have <br />to be reduced in size,.thewestern.billboard would have <br />to. be removed and one of the two eastern billboards would <br />_ have to be removed. <br />Councilman '7erdouschegg asked what was to be done. with the_ <br />windows on the south side of the office building. <br />The Planner. responded that they were to be removed and replaced <br />with similar material as the exterior of the building. <br />A <br />Elton Dahlke, applicant,-,was present. <br />Councilman Hardt inquired as to whether Mr. Dahlke was <br />in agreement with the Planning Commission conditions. <br />Nir. Dahlke stated that they appeared to be .reasonable.; - <br />however, he would like a sign covering 22.5 per cent <br />of the signable area on the south wall of the office- <br />. building. <br />Mayor Bromander asked what the purpose of the temporary _ <br />ground sign was. <br />Mr. Dahlke stated the temporary sign was to be used <br />pending completion of the landscape work and noted that the <br />sign would be set back the required setback distance_ <br />Motion by Hardt, seconded by Senden to close hearing. Close Hearing <br />4-ayes - 0 nayes- carried <br />Motion by Wexdouschegg to direct administration to prepare <br />resolution denying VN-170 for the following reasons: _ <br />1. The wall sign is out of proportion to the office <br />- building and repair shop. <br />_~ -___2.- The sign on the repair shop is too large and is <br />= not within the spirit of the existing sign ordinance. <br />3. That although hardship is present due to the location <br />of the buiadings, the building could be alternated to <br />provide larger signable areas. <br />Motion failed for lack of a second <br />