Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />June 12, 1985 <br />McDonalds <br />(Cont.) <br />Mrs. Timmons felt that the City has set a precedent in not allowing <br />pylons for their visibility. Timmons pointed out that the Little <br />Canada Mall requested that their pylon be visible from Rice Street. <br />Timmons felt that visibility from Highway 36 goes along with the price <br />of property on Highway 36. Timmons also commented that there was no <br />hardship in this case to warrant a variance. <br />Ms. Kassinger asked if the Commission would have a different viewpoint <br />if they purchased property on highway 36. <br />The Planner stated that the ordinance states that only one freestanding <br />sign is allowed. <br />Perlinger commented that the Code states one freestanding sign per <br />premise and no higher than 16 feet high. McDonalds is requesting <br />a height of 50 feet. <br />Mr. DeLonais stated that he is against the height proposed by McDonalds. <br />The Planner commented that McDonalds could move the location of its <br />current freestanding sign. However, it was pointed out that McDonalds <br />signs are currently in violation of the sign ordinance. <br />Kassinger asked about the City's feelings on )inboards. The Planner <br />commented that billboards are non - conforming under the ordinance and <br />an existing billboard would have to be used. <br />Perlinger pointed out that if every business in the Little Canada Mall <br />requested a freestanding sign, the City would have a mess. <br />DeLonais commented on the unusual configuration of the McDonalds property <br />and pointed out that the sign ordinance does not take this into <br />consideration. DeLonais felt that the City could consider each <br />individual situation. <br />DeLonais informed the McDonalds representatives that the Council meeting <br />is in two weeks and suggested that they approach the Council with their <br />request. <br />Mrs. Kingsbury recommended that the proposed McDonalds sign variance <br />for an additional pylon sign he denied for the reasons stated in the <br />Planner's report of June 11. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Perlinger. <br />Motion carried 6 - 0. <br />Revised Mr. Frank Frattalone appeared before the Commission and submitted a revised <br />Thunder plat for Thunder Bay Addition. Frattalone reported that the revisions <br />Bay Addition <br />Page —2— <br />