05/11/2005 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board April 13, 2005 Page 24 Mr. Pogalz stated he had read through the proposals and basically the first one they wanted unlimited banners for a year with a fee. With respect to the second proposal, it did not address banners directly, but rather a recommendation for several different types of signage. He stated a one -year permit was not temporary signage and the whole idea behind this was to limit signage. He asked why they could not come up with one proposal. Katie Allen, 6511 Ware Road, stated the reason the second proposal was sent in was because her needs were different than the other proposal. She noted she did not put up banners and she was asking the City to get behind some of the new businesses to succeed for one year and once the year was up, the businesses were on their own, but they needed help for one year. She indicated she needed temporary signage to advertise her business. She noted the other businesses had been established for a long time and she was struggling trying to make her business work. Chad Wagner, 7630 Appaloosa Lane, 818 Lois Lane, Millers on Main — Lake Drive, stated the business owners had worked together and had a proposal and he did not realize there was a second proposal, but agreed that Ms. Allen's needs were different. He stated the one -time fee was mentioned to reduce administrative work for the City staff and that was the only reason that was put that way. He stated he understood the policies of other Cities, but he believed Lino Lakes should not follow other City policies. He stated the bottom line was that this would hurt the small business owner. Mr. Nelson asked if it was three banners simultaneously, or would they be three different banners at different times. Mr. Wagner replied they wanted 2 or 3 banners per month. He noted he did not have the option of adding a nice sign like Trappers had because he had a nonconforming business and he was already in the right -of -way and therefore he had no options for advertising his specials. He stated he could not afford extensive media advertising. Chair Rafferty asked if Mr. Wagner could have a permanent sign, even because he had a nonconforming building. Mr. Smyser replied he could have a wall sign that advertised his specials and a non - conforming building was not an issue. Mr. Wagner stated it seemed like any issue he had, the non - conforming building was an issue. He stated he also understood that because he had an awning with the name on it, that would be his one sign and he would not be allowed another sign. Ms. Allen noted Bank of the West had three signs and asked what was the difference between her business and the bank. She noted other businesses also had more than one sign in the City. She indicated she was told she could only have one sign on the front of her building. Mr. Bengtson replied the sign plan for Spirit Hills set out which buildings could have more than one sign on them. Mr. Smyser stated Spirit Hills had a sign plan that was prepared and approved by the City. • • •