Laserfiche WebLink
s <br /> -4- <br /> • 1 In his December 7th memorandum,. Mr. Childs had reported Craig Belisle's unhappiness <br /> 2 at being required to turn off the flashing lights in the window of his store, the <br /> 3 Video. Update at .2501 Kenzi.e Terrace and i'ndi.cated Mr. Belisle had requested he be <br /> 4 given the opportunity of appealing staff's interpretation of the Sign Ordinance <br /> 5 that the flashing lights would not constitute an historical symbol because of their <br /> 6 resemblance to a theater marquis, as was stated in the store owner's November 26th <br /> 7 letter, which had been included in- the agenda packet. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Mr. Childs reiterated that it was staff's belief that it would take a substantial <br /> 10 stretch of .interpretation of the Sign Ordinance to consider the lights symbolic <br /> 11 of a theater_marquis, .which in any event, the ordinance would not permit to flash. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Mr. Belisle asked what the Cityhad against lights, saying his store is #11 in <br /> 14 25 other Video Updates around the metropolitan area., .half of*which he believes are <br /> 15 allowed the same .lighting arrangements he had in his window. He then identified <br /> 16 three -of these as- the Maplewood-, Eden Prairie stores and .the store on Rice Street <br /> 17 in St. Paul . <br /> 18 <br /> 19 The store proprietor questioned why the Public Works Director :had not told him <br /> 20 the City .would not allow this type of lighting when he initially discussed the <br /> 21 store with Mr. Belisle, saying he had undergone-' a great deal of expense installing <br /> 22 the lights, ,only to be told they had to be tur.ned. off.. According to Mr. Belisle, <br /> -23 it would cost him around $60, to purchase the computer chip to turn.the flasher off. <br /> 24 The complainant then distributed copies -ofa letter from: the Video Update <br /> 25 Corporate Counsel supporting; h'is contention that his lighting should be permitted <br /> 26 under the section in the Sign Ordinance which states a commercial establishment <br /> 27 is allowed one Historical identification symbol not exceeding five square. feet. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Commissioner Hansen responded that, even if the lighting could be considered an <br /> 30 excepti'on 'to. the Sign Ordinance, the window size itself would bring it into non- <br /> 31 conformance- with the same.ordinance: Commissioner Jones read Section 430:30 which <br /> 32 specifi.cal-ly prohibited any- flashing lights, :except those which gave time .and <br /> 33 temperature readings, which.= he read as meani-ng even if the lights could be <br /> 34 considered a theater marquis., they could not flash under that section. -The <br /> 35 Chair agreed, saying if a theater were located in the City, .the ordinance would <br /> 36 probably prohibit flashing lights on the marquis. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Commissioner. Bowerman tol:d the store, owner he perceived. there had never been an <br /> 39 ordinance intent to consider flashing lights as.historical symbols because the <br /> 40 section prohibiting flashing lights in signs had originally been written into the <br /> 41 ordi.nance .because the City perceived they. might create a distraction for drivers <br /> 42 along busy thor.oughfa'res. He told Mr.- Belisle that although the Commission wanted <br /> 43 to be .fair to him, they could foresee that, if they let him have that type of <br /> 44 lighting, that decision might be very hard to live with if sometime in the future, <br /> 45 a simi.lar request came i.n for a business located on a busy street like Stinson <br /> 46 Boulevard.. The Commissioner also questioned the concept that flashing lights are <br /> 47 historical. symbols .for .all - theater-s, many-of which now use other types of lighting <br /> 48 in their marquis. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 Commissioner Bowerman wondered whether a variance to the Sign Ordinance might not <br /> 51 have. to be granted if the lights were to be turned on again and told Mr. Belisle if <br /> • <br /> 52 that -were so, he might have a difficult time proving a unique hardship had been <br /> 53 created for him by the ordinance which had not been created for other businesses <br /> 54 in the same area. <br /> 55 <br />