10-14-1998 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 1998 Carl Schroeder indicated that Bally is on an inland piece of property and felt that an additional sign which is not located on Rice Street would be ineffective. Schroeder pointed out that he has two vacant pieces of property in this location and ultimately something will need to be resolved in terms of signage for these sites. The PUD option would give the City control to ensure that signage on these sites are uniform. Schroeder also suggested that if the site where the sign would be located develops, the City could require that the new business and Bally locate their signs on the same pole. The City Planner agreed that the City can impose conditions for the future signage or limit the amount of additional signage at this site. Therefore, he favors the PUD option. Carson suggested that there are other properties in the City that may wish to have signage on Rice Street. The Planner agreed that was a possibility. If a similar request were made, his office would try to distinguish between the Bally sign and the new request. The Planner pointed out as an example that the fact that the property on which Bally wants to place the sign is vacant may be a point of difference. Schroeder felt that if his property developed the Bally sign would stay and some accommodation would need to be made so that the new business could have a sign as well. Again, Schroeder suggested that the City could require both business signs on the same pole. Carson pointed out that maximum of 200 square feet of freestanding sign for this parcel. He suggested that since the Bally sign will consist of 67 square feet, there would be up to 133 square feet left for a new business sign. The Planner agreed that that was one restriction the City could place on the property. DeLonais pointed out that a new business may want its own pylon, and if the Bally sign is located at the north end of the property, the new business may want to place its sign on the south end. The Planner suggested that this is likely what would be requested. However, the PUD would give the City the ability to place restrictions on the site, such as limiting sign size, requiring signage on the same pole. At the time that a development proposal is made for the site, the Planning Commission and City Council would have the ability to review it and control what is happening. Page 11