PL PACKET 12201988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 �. that structure and the four other tenants would also need 2 identification. The proponent told the Commissioner he agreed with a 3 32 square foot sign to identify buildings on a side street but thought 4 it would be very difficult to identify that building with a sign that 5 size from Highway 88 "going 55 miles an hour. " 6 Mr. Youngquist said he had not talked to any of the neighbors in that 7 area, assuming they had been notified by the City of the hearing and 8 would be present if they had any serious concerns. He also said berming 9 the sign to the extent which would be necessary for it to be seen from 10 the highway would probably place the berming out in the City's right- 11 of-way. 12 The Chair checked to be sure no residents had come into the hearing 13 during the discussion and when none responded to his request for 14 questions, closed the hearing at 8:14 P.M. for the development of a 15 Commission recommendation to the Council. 16 Commission Response 17 Commissioner Hansen said there was no way he could vote for the 18 variance request because he perceived that with a height of close to 19 12 feet, the proponents were asking for "more of a billboard than a 20 sign. " The Commissioner said he still wasn't certain where the sign 21 was going to be located and perceived a danger of "obstruction at that �2 exceedingly dangerous intersection" . He said he didn't like a sign that �3 large abutting a residential neighborhood and thought building 24 identification would be sufficient since it would be in keeping with 25 signage for shopping malls all over the metropolitan area who don't have 26 tenant identification on the outside of their buildings. The - 27 Commissioner said in view of the apparent unwillingness of the proponent 28 to compromise at all on the size or location of the sign, he just 29 "generally opposed the request as submitted". 30 Commissioner Brownell stated that he supported the monument type sign 31 but would like to see something done to reduce the size. He said he 32 supported it as an alternative to having facie signs on the building 33 which would be totally uncoordinated. The Commissioner indicted he 34 also wanted to see a complete sign plan for the building before he acted 35 on the request and as "someone who drives by the location every day, 36 said he wanted to see specifically where the sign would be located. 37 Commissioner Werenicz indicated agreement with the other Commissioner's 38 concerns about size-, particularly the height, and preference for a 39 monument type rather than wall signs. He said he would not be opposed 40 to a sign in the general area proposed but considered the height to be 41 the major issue. The Commissioner indicated he could recommend 42 approval of a monument sign which- would be lowered, with landscaping 43 to make it attractive appearing, on which the copy would be cut. 44 Without such a compromise, Commissioner Werenicz said, he was totally �5 opposed to the package which had been presented that evening. He �6 suggested Mr. Youngquist return to his company to see if some other