Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />Oct. 7, 1982 <br />MGM (Cont.) <br />Mr. Nielson pointed out that the Little Canada Mall would have twice <br />as much signage as anyone else. Mr. Nielson commented that the Council <br />would still have control under an amendment. Nielson stated that the <br />basis for the sign area is the relationship between the front of the <br />building. <br />Mrs. Timmons asked if the City can discriminate against someone else <br />if the City likes the looks of this proposal. Mrs. Timmons pointed <br />out that the City has had a lot of problems in the past with signs. <br />Timmons stated that she would rather grant a variance in this case <br />and take each proposal on a case by case basis. <br />Mr. DeLonais stated that he thinks the problems with signs have <br />been the signage on boulevards. Mr. DeLonais stated that he would <br />be agreeable to a variance. <br />Mr. Brody asked the height allowd on pylons. The Planner stated that <br />a 30 foot height would be allowed on the pylon on Highway 36, and <br />about a 16 foot height allowed for the one on Minnesota Avenue. <br />Mr. Brody felt the 16 feet on Minnesota was too low. Mr. Brody <br />pointed out that due to the lay of the land the 16 feet height <br />would not be visible on Minnesota. Mr. Costa agreed. <br />The Planner stated that MGM wants a sign facing Rice Street because. <br />they can be seen from Rice Street. The Planner did not feel there <br />would be a problem with the pylon. Mrs. Timmons agreed. <br />Mr. Costa asked why only a 16 foot high sign would be%allowed on <br />Minnesota. The Planner replied because Minnesota was a smaller street. <br />Mr. DeLonais asked the height a sign would be allowed on Rice Street. <br />The Planner replied that between 22 and 26 feet would be allowed on <br />Rice Street. <br />Mrs. Timmons felt that Viking Partnership should submit elevation <br />plans showing the drop of their property from Rice Street. Mr. <br />LeMay agreed. <br />Mr. LeMay moved that the sign variance be approved as requested <br />providing Eor 20% of signage rather than 10% as provided under <br />the ordinance subject to the sign plan as submitted by Mr. Brody. <br />Motion was seconded by Mr. DeLonais. <br />Motion carried 7 - 0. <br />Page -5- <br />00 5 <br />