Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11, 1992 <br />designation are to be considered "Sign area ", then the proposed <br />wall signage is in excess of that required by ordinance by <br />approximately 15 %. Currently 20% of building face is allowed. <br />The lighted area, as proposed, consists of approximately 35 %. If <br />the determination is made that "sign area" reflects only that <br />area of the sign's characters, then the proposed wall signage <br />would be in compliance with minimum sign area requirements <br />covering only 4% of the building face on the east and west <br />elevations. Mayor Reinert noted that there would be no arrows <br />flashing or blinking. Mr. Dege said that plans for new FinaMarts <br />are being considered in Hopkins and Bloomington and for exact <br />illumination and they are not being considered a sign in these <br />two (2) cities. Mr. Dege noted that the illumination will be <br />directed toward I35E and Lake Drive. Council Member Bergeson <br />asked if all signs would be within the height limitation. Mr. <br />Schneider said yes. <br />Mr. Morrow asked if the ground sign would be "grandfathered" if <br />it were downsized to be closer to the Sign Ordinance <br />requirements. Council Member Bergeson said he felt a variance <br />would be required because essentially the entire site is being <br />renovated. Mayor Reinert asked what the value of the building <br />permit will be. Mr. Morrow estimated about $400,000.00. The <br />total renovation costs will be from $900,000.00 to $1,000,000.00. <br />Mr. Dege asked if changing this sign will cause FinaMart to <br />return to the City Council, can the old sign remain as is and be <br />"grandfathered ". Mr. Hawkins explained that the City Council <br />does have the right to request a variance and if the variance <br />fails, FinaMart has the right to leave the sign as it currently <br />is. <br />Council Member Elliott moved to close the public hearing at 8:00 <br />P.M. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried <br />unanimously. <br />Mr. Schneider read the Council options and recommendations from <br />the "green sheet ". The recommendations are as follows: Options <br />No. 1 and No. 2 are recommended for approval subject to the <br />following conditions: <br />1. A curb barrier is provided to the east side of the site's <br />southernmost row of parking as illustrated on Exhibit C. <br />2. Curb cut widths subject to approval of City Engineer. <br />3. Additional landscaping is provided to the south of the <br />southernmost truck parking stall including trees from the <br />end of the fence to the westernmost and or the truck <br />parking area. <br />4. An assurance is made that the proposed screening fence is of <br />a variety which will produce an effective 50 percent screen, <br />PAGE 8 <br />15 <br />