09-28-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council September 28, 1988 FinaServe Fahey felt that such situations should be judged on a case-by-case (Cont.) basis and that majority vote should decide the issue. The Planner stated that to avoid being arbitrary, the ordinance should contain a standar•d and be clear~ to the applicant. Fahey asked what standards other cities were using. The Planner replied that his impression of other cities' standards is that when an entir•e building is being replaced, the signs on the site must be brought into conformity with the ordinance. LaValle pointed out that the site is located on Rice Street. The City Planner reported that the City's Sign Ordinance sets standards by 7_oning District. Collova stated that he was in favor of leaving the existing sign. A1 Dineher stated that FinaServe would prefer to leave the existing sign than to have to r~eplace it with a 16 foot tall sign. Blesener pointed out that the ordinance would be applied in the case of a property owner who wanted to replace his single-family home. That pr•operty owner would be required to meet setback r~equir~ements which ar~e requir•ed by the or•dinance. Blesener felt that since the FinaServe building was being r~eplaced, ordinance r•equir~ements should be met. Scalze pointed out that FinaServe is star•ting over fr•esh on their• property, and she felt that other cities would require the ordinances to be followed. Fahey stated that he did not disagree. 6lesener and Scalze reported that they would not agr~ee to the City's Sign Ordinance being amended to reflect the results of the Planner~'s survey with regar•d to questions #3 and #4. Fahey suggested that the City Planner draft an or•dinance amendment reflecting the results of questions #1 and #2 in the survey. Fahey pointed out that there is not the necessar•y Council support for amending the ordinance with regard to questions #3 and #4. Therefore, the Fina- Ser~ve sign will have to be brought into conformance with the City's ordinance. Fahey suggested that the Council amend the Ordinance with r•egar•d to question #3 when a site is being remodeled, however, excluding situations wher•e a building is being demolished and rebuilt. Blesener stated that he would be agreeable to situations where a reasonable or• minimal amount of remodeling is being done, but not in this instance where a building has been totally demolished. Page -13-