1986-03-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes March 11, 1986 Winkels stated that within two years the city will begin receiv- ing substantial amounts of money from the developments, and how they are used will dictate how much development occurs in the city over the next ten years. On behalf of the council that enjoyed working with Winkels for many years, Schmidt thanked him for a lot of hard work in making these projects become a reality. Winkels thanked the council. and expressed that nothing could have been done unless there was a willingness on the part of council to work with staff, and stated he personally appreciated the trust and confidence the council had in him over the years. With regard to bonding, Benke brought back from Washington, D.C. and gave Sinda a packet of information which included information on the senate budget, as well as Senator Durenberger's response to House File 3838 which gives the January 1, 1986, date; stated it is conceivable there could be early action to eliminate the 1986 date on the part of the House conferees before they get into the process of working out their differences. Krueger reviewed the status of the billboards on the Dahlke property and the MWCC sewer interceptor, stating that MN/DOT has declared that one of the billboards is in non-conformity and they will not allow it to be taken down and then reinstalled. so the MWCC will have to tunnel underground. Krueger noted that one of the signs is too close to the other sign (the city requires them to be 1000 feet apart) and it is also larger than our code requirements (400 s.f. vs. 300 s.f.). Krueger reviewed a memo from Charlie LeFevere, City Attorney, which indicated that administratively we might be able to allow the signs to be taken down for a month while the sewer intercep- tor is under construction. Benke stated that taking the sign down and putting it up, in terms of less cost to the public, seems to be the rational thing to do. Schmidt felt we have to allow the economics to dictate what kind of a response the council will make in this case; makes sense when it is taxpayers money required. Brandt asked if there was any possibility of trying to influence MN/DOT for the purpose of saving that extra money; Krueger stated she had been working with MN/DOT who says they cannot give Naegle permission to remove the sign and reinstall it. based on state law. Page Ten Billboards on Dahlke Property