PL MINUTES 04191977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• requirements of a PUD as established in the City Zoning Ordinance and to answer all objections to previous commercial aspects of proposals as they had been raised by neighbors and members of both the Council and Planning Board. Mr. Daubney said he was ready to provide such a de- fense, although firm commitments from specific tenants might not be possible. He said the effectuating documents would be presented to the City Attorney for comment in advance of the hearing and said Mr. Hedlund proposed to arrange for the financing of the project. Motion by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to set a Public Hear- ing on the Hedlund proposal for a PUD on Lots 10-16 , Block 6 , Mounds View Acres Second Addition, at the Board' s next meeting on May 18 , 1977 . Motion carried unanimously. When Mr. Dale said he might not be able to attend this hearing, Mr. Daubney suggested to Mr. Hedlund that the date be changed to the Board's June meeting but Mr. Hedlund said he was willing to have the attorney make the presentation if Mr. Dale was not present for the May 18th hearing. The hearing was to remain as scheduled for May 18th. -Mr. Hiebel then apologized for the unscheduled appearance of Jack Law- rence of Signcrafters, Inc. , and William Farrell of Pizza Hut who had gotten his permisson to talk to the Board regarding a free standing sign which will require a variance to the City Sign Ordinance. The request • was for the same sign which had been voted down by the Board and tabled by the Council in September, 1976 . Minutes of'both bodies which re- flected those actions were then reviewed. Although it seemed it would be necessary only for the Council to take the matter off the table, the sign company official asked for some recommendation from the Board, in view of the time which Pizza Hut has spent waiting, for the establishment of guidelines regarding free standing signs by the Board. Mr. Farrell said he owns the Pizza Hut franchise in this area and plans to upgrade the St. Anthony operation at 3801 Stinson Boulevard to the standards of his other franchise restaurants but needed better identi- fication to make the investment worthwhile. He also wanted to change the logo on the back of the building to his company's ID and would re- move the sign on the front of the building. The Pizza Hut owner felt the poor performance of this particular restaurant was to a great extent the result of potential customers not being able to identify with the existing signage and felt the proposed sign was necessary because of the potential of high snow drifts obscuring the vision of potential customers . He said if his return on this restaurant could not be brought up to the level of his other operations, he might have to consider re- locating. The proposed sign will be 5 feet wide by 6 feet high on a 3 foot base which will make it 9 feet above grade which was considered too high by Rymarchick, Johnson and Letourneau who said they could only reluctantly consider a sign no higher than 7 feet and that height only because of the • (4)