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 replacethe 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- cou-ld 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 />