My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-24-91 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
07-24-91 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 3:09:49 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:54:00 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.
/
21
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 />JULY 24, 1991 <br />CONDITIONAL Scalze opened the public hearing to consider the <br />USE PERMIT application for Conditional Use Permit to allow the <br />& VARIANCE construction of a 56 foot by 60 foot steel canopy over <br />UNO-VEN CO. fueling islands as well as Variance to the Code to <br />allow a front yard setback of 16 feet for the canopy <br />for the Uno-Ven Company located at 300 Little Canada <br />Road. The Planning Commission has recommended approval <br />of the application. <br />Scalze expressed concern with signage and stated that <br />it was her understanding that if any changes were made <br />in the building, signage would have to be brought into <br />conformance with the Code. <br />The City Planner reported that he recalled some <br />discussion of this nature, but stated that he would <br />like to do some research to document it. The City <br />Planner pointed out that there have been some changes <br />in the Sign Ordinance, and he believed one of the <br />provisions was that a certain value threshold had to be <br />established before a property must be brought into <br />conformance with the Sign Ordinance. The Planner also <br />pointed out that when the property changed ownership, <br />there was discussion about the Sign Ordinance, and he <br />would like to research this discussion as well. <br />The City Planner suggested that the matter could be <br />acted upon contingent upon compliance with any past <br />requirements that were imposed, or compliance with the <br />Sign Ordinance, if that proves necessary. <br />Scalze pointed out that the Sign Ordinance has also <br />been amended increasing the height of signs allowed <br />along the freeway. <br />The Planner agreed, but pointed out that the Union 76 <br />sign as it stands now would still exceed the maximum <br />provided under the Sign Ordinance. <br />Don Egerer, consultant for Uno-Ven Company, reported <br />that when the property was converted from Mobile to <br />Union 76, the property had to comply with the <br />provisions of the Sign Ordinance. At that time the <br />size of the sign was reduced. Egerer reported that the <br />height of the Union 76 sign is approximately 35 feet. <br />Scalze disagreed that the Sign Ordinance requirements <br />were met at the time of the ownership change. <br />Blesener reported that the Sign Ordinance provides for <br />a maximum sign height of 20 feet in this area. <br />Blesener stated that he has no problem with the canopy <br />being proposed, and believed it would be an improvement <br />Page 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.