Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE <br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL <br />NOVEMBER 17, 1986 <br />287 <br />m a <br />Answering rollcall were Members Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner and Mayor <br />Courtney. <br />OFFICERS NISSEN AND JAMES COMMENDED. Manager Rosland introduced Officers Richard <br />Nissen and William James, noting that both officers were involved in the resusci- <br />tation of a City employee several months ago. <br />been with the City for'26% years and Officer James for 19% years. <br />commended them for their dedicated service to the City and its residents and they <br />were presented with silver pens bearing the Edina logo. <br />also extended their thanks and commendation to them for their dedication as Police <br />Officers. <br />He stated that Officer Nissen has <br />Mr. Rosland <br />Members of the Council <br />EDINA HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC TEAMS COMMENDED. The Mayor presented and moved adoption <br />of resolutions commending-the Girls' Tennis Team, Girls' Soccer Team, Boys' Soccer <br />Team and Michelle Chupurdia who represented the Girls' Cross Country Running Team <br />and Michael Curry who represented the Boys' Cross Country Running Team for their <br />accomplishments in recent state meets. The resolutions were unanimously adopted. <br />CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED. <br />Member Kelly to adopt the consent agenda as presented. <br />Rollcall : <br />Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney <br />Motion carried. <br />Motion was made by Member Turner and seconded by <br />ORDINANCE NO. 451-A5 ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR SIGNAGE IN THE MIXED DEVELOPMENT <br />DISTRICT GRANTED FIRST READING. Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved <br />and ordered placed on file. <br />to Ordinance No. 451 (Sign Ordinance) which would establish standards for signage <br />in the Mixed Development (ED) District. <br />signs in the MD District. <br />flow from requirements for individual use districts. <br />institutional standards are essentially the same as for the individual uses. Free- <br />standing area identification signs are controlled by the number of street frontages <br />and size of development. Mr. Larsen pointed out that the differences are basically <br />in these areas: 1) area identification signs, 2) accessory retail signs, and 3) <br />intra area directories. For the MD-3 and MD-4 Districts one area identification <br />sign is proposed not to exceed 50 square feet in area; for the MD-5 District (Edin- <br />borough) one sign per development not to exceed 70 square feet in\area. <br />opments with more than one street frontage, one additional sign per street frontage <br />is permitted provided it does not exceed 40 square feet in area. For accessory <br />retail s$gns, one identification wall sign per accessory use attached to the facing <br />of the building at the ground floor level is permitted not to exceed 15% of the <br />ground floor wall facing. <br />posed not to exceed 10 square feet. <br />discussed with Peter Jarvis with regard to the Edinborough project and the signage <br />they have proposed will comply with these standards. Member Bredesen asked how <br />this would affect potential future developments and commented that this amendment <br />is proposed because of the Edinborough project. Mr. Larsen said staff tried to <br />create'standards which would not be in.conflict with what other property owners <br />would be allowed for individual uses. Member Richards said this would create the <br />ability for larger signage and he felt the existing ordinance which was adopted <br />after much deliberation should remain. Mr. Larsen said the sign ordinance refer- <br />ences particular zoning districts and there is presently no provision for the MD <br />Districts. <br />the maximum sign area is 80 square feet and in the Planned Commercial District it <br />is 100 square feet and questioned why the requirement for the MD Districts is less. <br />Mr. Larsen said that since the Mixed Development District is not a straight commer- <br />cial development the signage requirement allowed in the Commerical District would <br />not be justified, but it would justify larger signage requirements than in a . <br />straight office development. Member Kellymade a motion for adoption of Ordinance <br />No. 45145 with waiver of Second Reading. Motion was seconded by Member Turner; -I <br />Planner Craig Larsen presented a proposed amendment <br />There are currently no standards for <br />He said that most of the requirements for the MD Districts <br />The office, multi-family and <br />For deve- <br />One intra area directory sign per major entry is pro- <br />Mr. Larsen said the proposed amendment has been <br />Member Turner pointed out that in the Planned Industrial District <br />Rollcall : <br />Ayes: Kelly, Turner, Courtney <br />Nays: Bredesen, Richards <br />Motion failed. <br />Member Kelly then introduced Ordinance No. 451-A5 for First Reading as follows: <br />ORDINANCE NO. 451-A5 <br />AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 451 <br />BY ADDING REGULATIONS FOR THE MIXED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT <br />Section 1. Section 5 of Ordinance No. 451 is hereby amended by adding the <br />THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: <br />following paragraph: