02-28-90 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council February 28, 1990 Schack believed that sign was a shared sign, however, pointed out the location of that Rapid Oil with Maplewood Mall as a major destination point. Scalze asked why additional signage on the side of the Rapid Oil building would not be a substitute for a pylon sign. Schack replied that the size would be less than that of a pylon and such signage would only be permitted on one side of the building. Boosalis pointed out that the City has the ability to amend the PUD Agreement to allow the third pylon at the Center. The City Planner disagreed. The Planner also pointed out that had the signage been proposed initially, his office would have highlighted the fact that too many pylons were being proposed. Fahey suggested that the matter be addressed by amending the Sign Ordinance allowing by conditional use permit for Planned Unit Developments separate pylon signs for free-standing buildings located within shopping centers. Fahey suggested that such an ordinance amendment be presented to the Planning Commission for their review and comment. Collova agreed that if there were separate owners at the Rice at C Center for each of the buildings, the City would have allowed three pylon signs. Collova felt the request should be accommodated in some fashion. Scalze was concerned that if the ordinance is amended as suggested, all developers will request PUD's. Scalze pointed out that Boosalis has already benefited under the PUD since he was allowed to build the Rapid Oil building in front of the second phase of the shopping center. Blesener felt that amending the PUD Agreement would open the City up to similar requests for other PUD's. LaValle pointed out that if the third building had been a fast-food restaurant there would have been no question and the third pylon would have been approved. Upon motion by Fahey, seconded by Scalze, the public Page 7