CCP 05-14-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 2, 1990 Planning commission Minutes, Page 3 Commissioner Peterson asked if the canopy is allowed. Planner Bergly responded that this was issued as a non-conforming use in . blanket approval with the rest of the signs for the site. Bergly also noted that there is not much direction or identity from the westerly direction (Snelling Avenue) and there will be no orange roof. Kappler noted that a multi-million dollar renovation is planned to take place on the site, which is to be completed by December 30, 1990. Chair Probst noted that the roof sign is a separate request and the other signs should be approved as a blanket group. Probst also noted that the directional signs are in violation of the number of signs allowed. Planner Bergly concurred that they are in violation. Winiecki stated she is against the directional signs, she felt there were too many signs and making them larger could present a hazard, as there is already too much to watch for on Co. Rd. E. There ensued a great deal of discussion on signs relating to the restaurant entrance and the hotel entrance. Chair Probst stated that the property is beyond Ordinance limitations now and the main concern of the Commission is to be sure it does not continue like this. Kappler responded that he does not think Howard Johnson will want to come back with another . sign request for the top of the canopy. Winiecki suggested granting approval of a roof sign and one directional sign, leaving one sign space open fur future needs. Martin questioned why the two directional signs both had to say Howard Johnson. One could say Howard Johnson and the other could say entrance/hotel, but he felt they both did not have to say Howard Johnson. Chair Probst felt that the issue had been skirted by calling the signs directional rather than identification signs. Kappler stated he had been told by Planner Bergly that if he met ordinance requirements, he would not need Planning commission approval. A question came up as to whether the signs were directional or identification. Planner Bergly called them directional since they had arrows on them. Members Peterson and Martin had no problems with the signs as suggested, other than Martin suggesting that only one sign have Howard Johnson on it. Both members felt the signs served a purpose of being a directional sign. McGraw moved, seconded by Ashbach, to recommend to Council approval of the following variances for two directional signs as . recommended by Planner Bergly: