08-24-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council August 24, 1988 R& S Ayes (5) Fahey, LaValle, Scalze, Collova, Blesener•. (Cont.) Nays (0). Resolution declar~ed adopted. This r~esolution appears in Resolution Book No. 20, Pages 353 and 354. Fina Fahey opened the public hear•ing on the Fina Serve request for sign Ser~ve height var•iance. Fina Serve cur•r•ently has a 30-foot high sign on Sign their property and would like to r~eplace it with another 30-foot high Height sign. City Code would allow a 16-foot high sign on the site. Variance Fahey pointed out that the Planning Commission has recommended appr•oval Agenda of the Fina Ser•ve variance due to the pr~ecedent set in the Unical sign Item No. 8 var~iance r~equest. Blesener did not feel the Fina Ser•ve situation and the Unical request were similar•. Blesener pointed out that in the Unical var~iance r•equest, the business fr•anchise was sold and the franchisee was required to change signs. In the Fina Ser•ve r•equest, Fina Serve is constructing a new convenience stor•e/gas station, and would like to erect a new sign as well. alesener did not believe the Highway 36 exposure of the Fina Ser•ve proper•ty had anything to do with the variance request. A1 Deininger, Fina Serve, pointed out that Fina Ser•ve would like to r~emove the existing 4-pole, 4-sided sign and erect a 2-pole, 2-sided sign. The new sign would be the same height as the existing sign. Fahey stated that he was in favor~ of the var•iance request. Fahey stated that he did not believe that the height of the sign should be lowered as a result of Fina Serve constr~ucting a new building. The City Planner~ pointed out that the Sign Ordinance says that any new activity on the site requires a non-conforming sign to be br•ought into conformance with the Code. Scalze pointed out that action on this r•equest would set a pr•ecedent that the City would have to live with. Blesener felt that the pr•ovisions of the City's Sign Ordinance should be enforced, other~wise the Ordinance should be changed. Blesener pointed out that the Council pr~eviously reviewed the Ordinance and found it to be fairly liberal when compared to the ordinances of other~ cities. Fahey did not feel it r~easonable to require the sign to be lowered because there is a new building under• constr•uction on the site. Scalze stated that the Council must look at what's right for the City overall. There was no one present fr~om the general public wishing to comment on thi s matter•. Page -10-