Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />March 9, 1989 <br />FinaServe <br />Sign Height <br />Variance <br />Appeal <br />(cont.) <br />Mr. Davison indicated that Ordinance 308 which the City <br />Council had recently passed states that if any business <br />makes improvements which equal 50% of their current value, <br />all signs must be brought into conformance. Mr. Davison <br />stated that even though he is in favor of the new sign, he <br />did not know how the Commission could contradict the current <br />Ordinance. <br />Mr. Grittman indicated that according to the old Ordinance, <br />as well as the new, the existing sign would have to be <br />removed and replaced with a 16' conforming sign. <br />Mr. Costa recommended that Ordinance 308 be revised to allow <br />businesses that have gone to great lengths, like FinaServe <br />did, to upgrade their premises put another sign up if it <br />does not exceed the present nonconformity. <br />Mr. Wilcox indicated that FinaServe should be judged using <br />the Ordinance which was in place when they made their <br />original request. Mr. Grittman stated that Ordinance 308 <br />did not apply to FinaServe anyway. <br />Mr. Costa indicated that some signs in Little Canada were <br />grandfathered in and therefore are nonconforming. <br />Mr. Pedersen felt that the Commission should follow what the <br />City Council decided or change the Ordinance. Mr. Pedersen <br />stated that if the City makes an exception for FinaServe, <br />the City will have to do so for others. <br />Mr. Tim Baylor, a representative from McDonald's, appeared <br />before the Commission reporting that they were concerned <br />about the elevation of the FinaServe sign. He stated that <br />if FinaServe's sign was raised at all, it would obstruct <br />McDonald's sign. Mr. DeLonais indicated that FinaServe was <br />not proposing to raise their sign, and that the FinaServe <br />had been in existence longer than McDonald's. <br />Mr. Pedersen asked if the canopy was considered part of the <br />signage and if it met the requirements of the Ordinance. <br />Mr. Grittman stated that it was part of the signage and that <br />it did meet the requirements of the Ordinance. Mr. Pedersen <br />indicated that he was sympathetic with FinaServe; however, <br />he feels that the Ordinance should be followed. Mr. <br />Pedersen further indicated that FinaServe knew that they <br />needed a variance, but decided to go ahead with the <br />remodeling anyway even though their sign variance request <br />could be turned down. <br />Page 5 <br />