Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-6- <br /> <br />and Council. The applicant had submitted a request fur approval of two <br />pylon signs.. One sign would be located at the far southwest corner of the <br />site with the intent of identifying the motel from highway 35W. The ordinance <br />would normally allow for a single sign at this site with a square footage of <br />70 square feet. He indicated the applicant proposed to construct a sign of <br />170 square feet which included a small 3 x 5 foot sign beneath the logo which <br />would indicate the price of a single room. In addition, he indicated the <br />applicants were proposing to place a sign at the entrance of their property <br />which would be 4' x 61 to identify the entrance to the motel. He indicated <br />the ordinance allowed for the placing of an entrance sign within a foot of the <br />driveway, but restricted the size to l~' x 3'. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren further indicated he did not feel the additional sign indicating <br />the cost of a single room, nor the larger entry way sign were necessary. He <br />further indicated that through discussions with the applicant, it had been <br />agreed that the entry way sign was not necessary. <br /> <br />Mr. Harvey Ro~t,representing the Super 8 Motels, indicated his assent to this <br />agreement, and withdrew this portion of the request. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren indicated it was his feeling thatit was within reason to approve a <br />sign of 140 square feet at the southwest side of the property, but did not feel <br />that the other small sign below this would be necessary. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Mr.,Johnson indicated the issue of the larger sign for properties that were slightly <br />removed from the highway has come up before and that other signs had been approved. <br /> <br />Mr. Matson indicated he did not have a problem with the placement: or size of the <br />logo sign. However, he did feel that the smaller price sign would tend to cheapen <br />the sign as well as the facility. <br /> <br />Mr.Rott indicated he felt this would be an asset to the business in that it does <br />attract people who are looking for a lower priced motel and that it has been <br />their practice in the past to emphasize price so that people passing will under- <br />stand that this is a motel offering lower prices. <br /> <br />Mrs. Dressler indicated she felt the owners should have more of an understanding <br />of the motel business than she, and that if the applicant felt this was terribly <br />important, it may, in fact, be o.k. <br /> <br />Mr. Kehr indicated he felt that the people who were looking for a motel would <br />recognize that the Super 8 Motel chain was, in fact, a lower priced motel. He <br />did not feel that the price sign was necessary. <br /> <br />Mr. Rukavina indicated he was very hesitant to substitute his Planning Commission <br />judgment for the business judgment of the applicant, but did not feel this was <br />a necessary addition to the sign. <br /> <br />Recommendati on <br /> <br />Mr. Rukavina moved and ~1r. Mastel seconded, that the Planninq Commission recommend <br />approval of only the variance insofar as it applied to one pylon sign of 140 square <br />feet. Roll Call, Ayes: Matson, Moeller, Rukavina, Dressler, Mastel, Johnson. <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Adjournement <br /> <br />Mr. Moeller moved and t~r. Matson seconded, that the Planning Commission meeting <br />ur l'Iu~u;>t. ::;,1901 b.;;. Qd.jou.~ncd o.-b o.pp.-o,d""o.-b.;;.lJ 9.::;::; l".t1. Rull Cull, 1'1:1<;;;>' <br /> <br />Matson, Moeller. Kukavina. Dressler. Ma<:tpl_ ,lnhn<::nn M:>".... ~I~__ <br />