Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING REPORT <br />12 October 1988 <br />DATE: <br />1895 <br />CASE NUMBER: <br />Universal Sign Company (for <br />APPLICANT: Motel 6) <br />LOCATION: Northeasterly Quad <br />LOCA rant of <br />Trunk Highway 36 and <br />Interstate 35W (see sketch) <br />ACTION -REQUESTED: <br />Variance to Sign Size <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br />ose to erect a new sign for the Motel <br />1. The Universal Sign Company prop <br />6 roperty that is being developed on the old Victoria 00 t : Sand <br />P <br />The land is zoned B-1B which allows for a sign osquare-feet <br />e ca <br />25 feet high, if contiguous to a freeway. This is ts� n allowed se in this, <br />proposal. If the land were zoned B-2. or B-3, the pylong <br />would be 225 square feet and 45 feet high. <br />2. Several weeks ago we met with the applicant who was proposing a sign <br />of 180 `square feet and 45 feet high. We suggested that the sign <br />approved for the Mothontiguous to <br />er Tucker's site ithe <br />mmediately reasonable ' in this <br />PP ood guide as to what might be <br />north would be a g 9 in <br />case. Mr. Rick Jopke checked the records and `fos issued tfor a hsign aof <br />of the Mother Tucker's development, a variance wa <br />167 s quare feet and 40 feet high. Under these conditions we suggested <br />that it would be appropriate to consider a similar sign size and height <br />for the Motel 6 development. <br />et i.is <br />3. The a licant proposes a sign of 11 feet in width by 13 o Posed 9 sign he <br />PPs <br />in height which is 151.25 square feet. Thus, the p p <br />slightly less nor <br />than the sign approved for Mother Tucker's to <br />o the Mother <br />9 Y <br />The height of the sign as proposed is 45 feet, whereas <br />Tucker's sign is 40 feet. It is not apparent why the additional height <br />would be necessary. <br />ut a sin on the <br />4. In addition, the drawing indicates sn at theproposal entrance.o Each of 9 these are <br />building and a directional <br />g <br />acceptable under Ordinance requirements. <br />5. <br />The drawing indicates the sign will be located 15 felt froItmwould he <br />property line. We did not discuss the location spe Y <br />appear, however, that the sign could be setback <br />propertyer line. and Yperhaou p l <br />parallel to and perhaps S feet from the nor p P <br />note that the parking in this area is setback 10 feet from north <br />property line. <br />w sign for <br />6, In summary, it would appear that the development <br />of a Planning eCommission <br />the Motel 6 property would be appropriate. <br />and Council may wish to discuss whether the 45 foot high sign <br />requested is essential or merely "higher". <br />