01-27-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MI~IUTES City Council Jan. 27, 1988 Sl umberl and Lar•r•y Lee asked the pr~ocess he woul d have to go thr•ough to r~equest a Sign r•econsider•ation of the Slumber•land r~equest for~ sign var•iance. Var~i ance Fahey stated that the pr•ocess for• r~econsider•ation is to make the Agenda r•equest after• the meeting in which a matter• was denied. Fahey felt Addition a sign var~iance request at this point would have to be tr•eated as a new r~equest and sent back to the Planning Commission. The Planner agreed. Fahey pointed out that while the City Planner~ had r•ecommended appr•oval of the sign variance r~equest pr~eviously submitted by Slumber~land, the Planning Commission r•ecommended denial. Blesener• stated that the ar•guments for~ the sign var~iance would have to be significantly differ~ent to convince him to vote in favor~ of such a var•i ance. Scalze agr•eed. Fahey noted that the pr•evious r~equest was denied by a 3 to 2 vote ~nd it would take 4 affir•mative votes to pass such a var•iance r~equest. Blesener~ suggested that if su~h r•equest is going to be r•esubmitted, ~es~~-r3'~"' he would like to see the sign-~~~~-SOf the Cities of Roseville, Shor~eview, White Bear~ Lake, Eden Pr~air~ie, Fagan, Bur•nsville and Cdina. B1 esener• noted that Eden Pr•ai r•i e and Fagan ar~e gr•owi ng communi ti es and he notices ver~y few signs in those cities. Fahey stated that he was aar~eeable to r•eviewing the r•equest again. Scalze noted that the last time the City amended its sign or•dinance, it incr•eased the size of signs fr•om 10% of the building silouette to 15%. Lee r•epor•ted that hi s r•easoni ng for~ the si gn var~i ance i s that the total acr•eage of the site is 16 acr~es. If this pr•oper~ty wer•e subdivided, the amount of signage for the area would be much greater than the one sign Slumber~land has now. Lee also r•epor•ted that he will be coming in with a pr~oposal to add another~ 100,000 feet to the east side of the Slumber~- land facility. Lee felt that with the size of the facility and only one user• on 16 acr•es, that an adjustment in the size of the sign was warranted. Blesener felt Lee would have to prove that the City's ordinance is inconsistent with what other~ cities ar•ound Little Canada ar~e doing. Fahey asked the Planner• to compare the pr•ovisions in var•ious sign or•dinances dealing with acr•eage and size of builtling. Fahey agr~eed that the issue should be considered by the Planning Commission befor~e coming to the Council. Fahey pointed out that the Planning Commission discussed r~evision of the sign or•dinance at their~ last meeting, and did not want to spend the time and money r•evising it since the or•dinance Page -12-