Laserfiche WebLink
MINUT`S <br />Planning Commission <br />Sept. 11, 1986 <br />Connco David Johnson, representing Connco, appeared before the Commission <br />Roof Sign and reported that Connco has been trying to rent half of the building <br />(Cont.) to another business, however, without the guarantee of signage for <br />the business, they have been unable to do so. Johnson reported that <br />under the ordinance, the building would be allowed two pylons if <br />there are two separate businesses on the premises. However, in order <br />to get approval for a pylon for the second husiness, the roof sign <br />would have to be brought into conformance with the ordinance. <br />Johnson reported that he has gotten an estimate to remove the roof <br />sign and have it mounted on a pylon. The cost to do so would be <br />$15,000. Johnson pointed out that relocating this sign would serve <br />no purpose as the sign would remain the same. <br />Johnson reported that he is requesting the text amendment which would <br />still prohibit roof signs, but allow the City the flexibility of <br />allowing existing roof signs to remain if it would serve no purpose <br />to remove them. <br />Johnson reported that the sign he would request for the new husiness <br />would he 90 square feet in size and that is the amount of signage <br />still available to the building under the ordinance. <br />Johnson then reported that when he requests the additional pylon, <br />he will be requesting a height variance. Johnson reported that the <br />City's ordinance allows pylons to be 25 feet in height, and in this <br />location the sign could not be seen. <br />Davison pointed out that McDonald's was not granted a variance for <br />a pylon to be seen from Highway 36. <br />The City Planner felt that the situations were different, and pointed <br />out that McDonald's did not have frontage on Highway 36. McDonald's <br />also wanted two pylons for one husiness. <br />Mr. Johnson showed pictures of Connco's present signage and its <br />visibility from the freeway. Johnson also explained the elevations <br />of the area and felt that a height variance of 12 or 13 feet would <br />he needed to get visibility from the freeway. <br />The Planner reported that the proposal before the Commission tonight <br />is the text amendment, and the issue of a height variance would <br />he handled at a subsequent meeting. <br />Mr. Davison recommended approval of the proposed text amendment <br />pertaining to roof signs. <br />Motion seconded by Mr. Perlinger. <br />Motion carried 5 - 0. <br />Page -2- <br />