My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-25-90 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
04-25-90 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:00:47 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:53:14 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.
/
30
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 25, 1990 <br />The City Attorney reported that signage is a <br />conditional use under the PUD Agreement, therefore, and <br />it would require four votes to amend the agreement. <br />Blesener suggested that the City Planner take another <br />look at the ordinances he reviewed to determine how <br />they address signage for shopping centers with two <br />frontages. Blesener stated that he might be willing to <br />consider a third pylon for the shopping center if one <br />of the pylons is centered on the County Road C <br />frontage. <br />The City Planner stated that typically a sign ordinance <br />will not address a particular location for a sign, <br />however, some ordinances may require signs to be a <br />certain number of feet from the intersection on the <br />secondary frontage. <br />Scalze felt that locating one of the pylons on County <br />Road C would make sense so that there are not three <br />pylons for the shopping center along Rice Street. <br />Scalze suggested that this issue be sent to the <br />Planning Commission for their review. <br />Collova stated that he was in favor of the three pylons <br />being requested, pointing out that had the property <br />developed with two separate businesses, four pylons <br />would have been allowed. <br />Blesener stated that the City's Sign Ordinance allowed <br />a second pylon for a shopping center having two <br />frontages with the intent that one pylon would be <br />located on each frontage. Blesener pointed out the <br />case of the shopping center on Minnesota Street which <br />also has frontage on Viking Drive. <br />Collova stated that as long as a pylon was visible from <br />County Road C, he was not hung up on requiring the <br />pylon to be centrally located on County Road C. <br />Collova pointed out that the property had been combined <br />by the developer for financing reasons, otherwise, the <br />property would probably be separate parcels. <br />Fahey pointed out that Rapid Oil is a separate building <br />from the shopping center. Fahey stated that if the <br />best the City could do was allow three pylons as long <br />as one was located on County Road C, he would support <br />this position. <br />Page 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.