09/12/1990 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 12, 1990 2. Farvue would advertise only KSTP. 3. Farvue had an "aesthetically undesirable" airport sign outside of Bloomington. The Bloomington court order (actually a writ of mandamus) states "...The application by Farvue met all of the objective and subjective criteria contained in the city's ordinance..." The emphasis here should be on objective and subjective. Adams is stating something like "We're meeting all the distance requirements now you've got to give us a conditional use permit or else." The city denied applications from Adams before and John Miller feels the city should do so again. Miller thinks this is the wrong place for a billboard. With utility petitions from the landowners the city can initiate improvement projects in the area. The assessments will force quick development. The planning process in place for the area now will end this fall with a "developer's luncheon" in which the metro area developers will be invited to start construction. I doubt that a business located under a 4 story lighted sign would be desirable. If the city permits this sign erection it may well be doing so at the cost of other development. Mr. Chase asked if any other applications have been before the board since the denial in 1988. Miller answered no. John Bergeson stated that'an interchange study is now being completed for this area. The city is not sure yet the results of this study. He feels it would be wise to deny this application at this time. MOTION: John Bergeson moved to recommend to the city council denial of a conditional use permit for Adams Outdoor Sign Company to erect a billboard as outlined in Application #90- 52 based on the following findings. The billboard: 1. Will be detrimental to the general welfare of the neighborhood and the city. 2. Will not be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the comprehensive plan of the city. 3. Will be designed so as not to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity and will change the essential character of the area. 4. Will be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Page 7 1