CC MINUTES 01131998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 13, 1998 Page 5 1 Commissioner Makowske noted that although the size of the second sign had been reduced to 2 comply with City Code, the first proposed ground sign would be 7 foot by .10 foot and would 3 require a variance. 4 City Attorney Soth noted that this request would not have to be considered again by the 5 Planning Commission as the variance requests were not being increased. 6 Mayor Ranallo noted that there is residential opposition to the proposal. 7 Mr. Sarna stated the residents who signed the petition were not aware of the details of the 8 proposal. He noted that there was no residential opposition expressed at the Planning 9` Commission Meeting. 10 Commissioner Makowske explained that Management Assistant Moore-Sykes had spoken with 11 the resident who circulated the petition. The resident had been under the impression that the 12 requested signage would be in addition to the existing signage rather than in place of it. The 13 Planning Commission was unable to discern if there was residential opposition to the project 14 as there were no residents in attendance at the Planning Commission Meeting. 15 Commissioner Makowske reported that Mr. Sarna claims the hardship is that the stop lights, telephone poles and wires obstruct the view of the pylon sign. The Planning Commission 7 viewed this as a inconvenience but not a hardship. 18 Mayor Ranallo noted the intersection of 37`h Avenue and Stinson Boulevard is known to be an 19 area of many accidents. He suggested the large monument sign would add more visual 20 obstruction to a problem area. 21 Marks noted that per State Statutes the hardship could not be related to the difficulties of a 22 business owner. A hardship must be due to the shape of the lot or the topography. This 23 property is a standard lot without unique circumstances. 24 Mr. Sarna stated that from a business standpoint the hardship is the clutter on the corner. 25 Cavanaugh questioned the height of the pylon sign and the large ground sign. 26 Mr. Sarna stated that the pylon sign is 8 feet high and the ground sign is 8 feet high including 27 the base. 28 Cavanaugh asked if the sight lines had been determined. He suggested that the pylon was 29 above the ground and provided the ability to "look through" the sign. A ground sign would 30 result in a 4 "wall". 32 Faust stated that the issue is not the aesthetics or the sight line but rather if the request meets 33 the requirements for granting a variance.