Laserfiche WebLink
I Planning Commission Meeting <br /> 2 December 15, 1992 <br /> 3 Page Two <br /> 4 <br /> 5 <br /> 6 <br /> 7 construction of an illuminated ground sign to identify the mall. It was determined that the <br /> 8 larger Conoco sign in the agenda packet actually only had 206.5 square feet of sign surface <br /> 9 which was less than the 208.7 square foot sign for which the applicants had been granted a <br /> 10 variance in October, 1991. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 The ground sign was proposed to be 128 square feet of sign surface where the new sign <br /> 13 ordinance allows 150 square feet. When questioned about what was planned for the base of <br /> 14 the sign, Mr. Vogt indicated there were 22 feet of lawn, trees, decorative rock and shrubbery <br /> 15 all around the front and both sides of the site. He said the footings for the ground sign are <br /> 16 within the planted area but the trees,-shrubs and rock are in other_areas. Commissioner <br /> 17 Madden pointed out that under the new ordinance the ground sign can only be five feet high <br /> 18 unless it qualifies for a height bonus which for a 128 foot sign would seem to require 192 <br /> 19 square feet of qualifying landscaping around the pedestal of the sign. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 The applicants indicated a willingness to work with staff to bring the signage into <br /> 22 conformance with the requirements of the ordinance. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Commissioner Madden told Mr. Vogt and Mr. Sarna how gratified he was to see their <br /> 25 operation up and thriving. However, he said he was concerned about the profusion of <br /> 26 non-conforniing signage he perceived on their property including the lottery banner on their <br /> 27 store; the signs above the four gas pumps, and the oversized sign in the door window of what <br /> • 28 was formerly Mr. Roberts Beauty Shop which advertised that business' relocation to <br /> 29 Columbia Heights. The fact that the signs had been up for such a long gime caused hum to <br /> 30 doubt the sincerity of the City staff's efforts to enforce the sign ordinance,the Commissioner <br /> 31 indicated. He said he was especially concerned since this was the City's first efforts under the <br /> 32 new Sign Ordinance and he perceived precedents were being set which could diminish the <br /> 33 intent of the ordinance right at its start. When Mr. Urbia said he would have to refer these <br /> 34 complaints to the City Manager, Commissioner Madden indicated that to demonstrate his <br /> 35 displeasure with a lack of commitment to enforcement he intended to abstain from voting on <br /> 36 the motion of approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 The applicants indicated a willingness to work with staff to bring the proposed signage into <br /> 39 confomnance with the requirements of the ordinance to avoid having to go through a public <br /> 40 hearing on any variance from the ordinance. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Motion by Murphy, seconded by Thompson to recommend Council approval of the <br /> 43 Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Stop-N-Shop mall on the condition that the Conoco pylon <br /> 44 sign not exceed the 208.7 square feet of sign surface for which the applicants had been granted <br /> 45 a 55 foot variance in the fall of 199.1 and that landscaping around the pedestal of the ground <br /> 46 sign be provided in accordance with the requirements set forth oil Page 12, Subdivision 4, <br /> 47 Subsection 1 of the Sign Ordinance dealing with strip malls. <br /> 48 <br /> 49 Voting on the motion: Thompson,Gondorchin,Murphy,Faust, Werenicz-Aye. <br /> 50 Madden -Abstention. <br /> 51 <br /> 52 Motion carried. <br /> • <br />