PL PACKET 12201988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 1 *also pointed out that the main entrance to the building was located • 2 away from Highway 88 and said the tenants' names would probably also 3 appear on the sidelights of that doorway with internal signage 4 designating the units as well. 5 When Commissioner Hansen asked whether the management company had given 6 any thought to landscaping around the sign to "reduce the imposition 7 of the sign on the surrounding area" , Mr. Youngquist indicated he 8 perceived there were probably things which could be done to soften and 9 hide the base. The Assistant to the City Manager said she had figured 10 that if the sign were allowed to be 8 feet tall, 177 feet of 11 landscaping would be required by the ordinance. 12 When Chair Wagner asked Mr. Youngquist whether he had considered cutting 13 down the size of the sign, which far exceeded the City Ordinance, he 14 responded by saying "I just don't think it's going to be worth doing at 15 all if we do it any smaller. " He said the sign he was proposing was 16 only average when it came to the signs his firm used in other locations. 17 He questioned whether the sign base should be counted in the overall 18 sign. size because he perceived it was only "an attempt to get the sign 19 high enough to be seen from the road. " When he suggested removing the 20 base and putting the sign on a pole, he was told that would be a pylon 21 sign which the Ordinance doesn't allow. 22 Commissioner Hansen reported getting a call from a resident who lived • 23 almost directly behind where the sign was planned and wanting to know 24 why it couldn't be located further north on the property. Mr. 25 Youngquist indicated the drivers who want to turn into that site have 26 to see the sign in time to utilize the left hand turning lane and mature 27 spruce trees between the building and the highway would obscure the view 28 of drivers coming from the north. He said he couldn't see any gain in 29 eliminating the trees. 30 Mr. Youngquist said he thought his company might be willing to berm up 31 the area under the sign base and, although StrategiCare ran a night 32 shift, to turn off the sign after regular business hours because the 33 company was probably not receiving clients or deliveries at night. 34 Commissioner Werenicz told the management representative that there was 35 a problem for him with both the height and sign size included in the 36 same variance because together they represented "an awful lot for you 37 to be asking" . He said even with berming, the sign would be 3 . 9 feet 38 taller than the Ordinance allowed and asked if Mr. Youngquist would be 39 willing to make any compromise. Mr. Youngquist argued that this was a 40 very large building for St. Anthony and he perceived they needed a 41 sign big enough to be easily read from Highway 88. He said he could 42 go back to the drawing board but thought his firm had exhausted a lot 43 of the potential because a free standing sign seemed to be the best 44 solution for the building. He contended that if a sign identifying 45 all the tenants and the building itself were put up on the tower wall, • 46 it might be more confusing than to just identify the major tenant in 47 that space. He reiterated that there were actually two buildings in