My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-22-89 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
03-22-89 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 2:50:39 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:52:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
FinaServe Mrs. Scalze stated that's the key - if code not right, we <br />Sign Height should look at. <br />Variance <br />(Cont) Mr. Blesener stated the planner has gone through twice. <br />Has given us comparison codes - once for Slumberland sign <br />where variance not granted on height, and again on this. <br />Our sign ordinances are quite liberal. Doesn't recall other <br />areas having freeway exceptions. <br />Mr. Grittman stated very few had those kind of exemptions. <br />Asked criteria on variances; how applied differences in <br />signs. Few made that kind of distinction. Doesn't know <br />Maplewood situation but would guess signs there quite awhile. <br />Maplewood's ordinances are new like Little Canada's and <br />are non-conforming like ours. <br />Mrs. Scalze stated Slumberland was turned down for different <br />sign and 35L/694 major freeway. <br />Mr. Fahey feels this is an undue hardship that they must <br />take down sign and not rebuild at the same heigYit when going <br />from a 4-pole to a 2-pole sign. Feels it would clean up <br />the area. It is a twist of the code but they are rebuilding <br />the same sign. <br />Mrs. Scalze stated should change the code not just give <br />a variance. If the code too restrictive, should change <br />the code. <br />Mr. Fahey stated the code is loose on the term "hardship." <br />Situation should be compared to other competitors similarly <br />situated along the freeway and Lhen rationalize. <br />Mrs. Scalze stated in the case of ConnCo they were located <br />below the freeway and a topographical hardship. <br />Mr. Wilcox stated Fina being penalized. They have spent <br />lots of money to refu-rbish the station based on past <br />precedence of city. They knew about Union 76 and ConnCo <br />variances and don't feel Fina any difierent than Union 76. <br />Our due process of protection is being trampled on. <br />Mrs. Scalze stated that maybe the Council should go back <br />to Union 76 and admit we erred and that they should take <br />down tkie sign. Try to apply ordinances equally across the <br />board. <br />Mr. Wilcox feels there is practical reality here. ~ven <br />the existing code doesn't recognize a freeway frontage zone, <br />which a week ago the Planning Commission unanimously recom- <br />mended to you that you set one up. <br />Mr. Blesener stated that was a comment one member made with <br />no discussion and not much thought given. <br />Page -6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.