10-14-98 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 14, 1998 Upon motion by Scalze, seconded by Fahey, the public hearing was closed. LaValle asked if allowing the Bally's sign on Rice Street would set a precedent. The City Planner indicated that PUD's are less susceptible to precedent issues. The Planner pointed out that the reason that a second pylon could be allowed is that there are two businesses occupyin~ the single building. City staff has verified this. Bally's has both a health club and its corporate offices in the building. LaValle pointed out that Bally's does not own the property and asked if the property is sold would the si~n have to remain. LaValle also pointed out that there are other properties on Rice Street that this action may affect. For example, the owner of Hoggsbreath also owns a car wash on Demont Street. LaValle asked if a pylon would be allowed for the car wash on the Hoggsbreath property. The Planner reported that a PUD would have to be approved. The Planner also pointed out that the PUD combines the Schroeder parcels for administrative purposes. Scalze pointed out that in the Bally's request, the Schroeder property is contiguous. However, the Hoggsbreath and car wash property is not. Pedersen pointed out that Schroeder Development Company could sell this property tomorrow, but the PUD wou(d continue on. The Planner replied that that was correct. If Schroeder's sell the property, the new owner would be subject to the PUD. LaValle felt that in some ways the City's sign ordinance was too restrictive, but expressed concerns about the precedent this action would set. LaValle stated that the Council would have to be prepared to deal with similar requests. Fahey suggested that if the Council feels the sign ordinance is unduly restrictive, than perhaps staff should research what other cities are doing and report back to the Council. Pedersen sug~ested that the reason off-site pylons are not allowed is to prevent clutter along Rice Street.