07-23-2003 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JULY 23, 2003 The City Planner noted that while the Council 82 building will screen a portion of the canopy from the right-of--way, the canopy is longer than the building and will be visible from either side. Anderson asked if lap siding would be preferable. The City Planner indicated that stucco was a more typical requirement for an industrial site. Anderson pointed out the location of the Council 82 building and the former Knox building in relation to the canopy, and questioned the desirability of the former Knox building given steel siding on the canopy. Anderson felt that if the City had the ability to make the canopy more attractive through the requirement of stucco siding, it should. Johnson pointed out the existing steel and block building behind the former Knox building. He also noted the landscaping that will be done in front of the canopy. Fahey pointed out that the initial requirement for the stucco was made prior to the City's having knowledge of the Council 82 building. Fahey felt that given the fact that this building will screen the canopy as well as landscaping requirements, he did not have a problem allowing steel siding on the canopy. Blesener asked about allowing the Drywall Supply sign on the former Knox building site. He noted that when the former Knox building is sold, that property owner will also want signage on the site. Johnson felt that there would be room for sufficient signage on the building itself, that the future property owner would not need a pylon sign. Montour pointed out that the Drywall Supply sign would be an off- premise sign, therefore, would not be allowed. Gary Germundson indicated that Drywall Supply is requesting a PUD, therefore, off-premise signage could be allowed. Fahey stated that he did not have an issue with the request that the Drywall Supply sign remain on the site of the former Knox building. Blesener felt that this was a unique situation, and did not have an issue with the request at this time. Fahey noted that under the PUD a request for an additional pylon sign for the property would have to be presented to the Council for approval. Fahey felt the issue could be addressed at the time the former Knox building is sold and the new owner makes a signage request. Johnson indicated that he had an issue with the October 31 s` date included in the development agreement points. He noted that work could not begin until August; therefore, it would be difficult to meet That date. Johnson 10