Laserfiche WebLink
Motion carried. <br />Mr. Hedlund then wondered if another lood at the Nason Wehrman Chapman <br />study of the area in question would not be advisable. <br />Mr. Jack Lawrance of Signcrafters, Inc. presented a detailed drawing <br />of the pylon sign which Pizza Hut is asking for a variance to the sign <br />ordinance to place in front of their restaurant at 3801 Stinson Boule- <br />vard. He explained that the 6 foot high, 4 foot wide sign would be <br />mounted on a rough cedar standard and the entire sign would be 9 feet <br />above ground and would replace the existing signage with only a small <br />identifying logo placed near the front entrance. The sign would be <br />back lighted but not flashing and would be set back 10 feet from Stinson <br />where it would not be a traffic hazard and would directly line up with <br />the new sign in front of Poppin Fresh. Pizza Hut feels they need the <br />sign for better identification. <br />Mr. Rymarchick said the Council had just directed the Board to prepare <br />specific guidelines for monumental signs and this sign certainly did <br />not agree with this concept of the type of sign which should eventually <br />be allowed in the sign ordinance. It was his contention that monumental <br />signs should always be wider than they are tall with standards no more <br />than one foot high to minimize visual inpact. He also felt such signs <br />should be of compatible construction to the buildings they advertise <br />and said the plastic appearance of the sign Mr. Lawrance proposed did <br />not in his opinion meet these standards. He also would like such signs <br />to stand no higher than 5 feet above grade. <br />Mr. Lawrance said a 5 foot sign in this climate is not productive and <br />felt his client could not afford to invest $2,200 in a sigh which might <br />be covered with snow for three months of the year. T <br />Mr. Letourneau felt it was the responsibility of the owner to see the <br />snow is removed if he wants the sign to be seen. Mr. Rymarchick felt <br />a shorter sign could be easily recognized by anyone who might want to <br />patronize the restaurant. Mr. Johnson pointed out there is no high <br />speed factor in that area which might justify a larger, higher sign and <br />it was his belief that the duty of the Board was to guard against the <br />roadways in the City taking on the appearance of a Roberts Street in <br />St. Paul. <br />Mr. Hiebel then made a motion to table action on the request for a <br />variation to the sign ordinance until such time as the Board is able to <br />make a detailed recommendation as to requirements for monumental signs <br />as an addendum to the present sign ordinance. <br />Mr. Lawrance indicated his client would prefer to have an immediate in- <br />dication of approval or denial of his request rather than to wait the <br />period of time it might take to reach an agreement on these guidelines. <br />Mr. Hiebel's motion died for lack of a second. <br />Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded by Mr. Hiebel to recommend to the <br />Council approval of the request for a variance to the sign ordinance <br />-5- <br />