12-28-1999 BA MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustments Minutes December 28, 1999 Page 2 • two wall signs were allowed. Ms. Goodson stated that she was aware of the limit, but that she did not know a strip mall was to be built next door and would block their visibility from the highway. Commissioner Chambers asked why staff has determined that the signage on the front of the building is two signs. Scott Harlicker explained that the wording is physically separated by both distance and depth on the building from the logo sign. Ms. Goodson stated that Applebees has tried banners on the highway side of the building, but they feel strongly that a permanent wall sign is needed to help people find the restaurant. There being no further public comment, Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kuester asked if the amount of signage allowed for businesses such as Applebees is different than for "big box" retailers. Michele McPherson noted that most "big box" retailers are located in a PUD, which is tailored to suit the development and signage may not be the same as what is generally allowed in the ordinance. Scott Harlicker noted that two wall signs will be allowed in the Elk River Crossing Planned Unit Development. Commissioner Schuster stated that the signage on the front of the building should not be considered two signs and that the Commission has the ability to make that determination. He felt the applicant meets the five findings for granting a • variance. Chair Mesich noted that other properties in the immediate area are also limited to two wall signs. Discussion followed regarding options for combining the signage to allow Applebees a sign on the Highway 169 side of their building. Commissioner Schuster felt that since the building design does not allow running the wording together on the front of the building, it should not be considered two signs, staff had to make a subjective decision regarding the sign on the front of the building. He stated that the Commission should be able to make the determination whether it is two signs or one sign. Commissioner Thompson stated that she did not feel the Planning Commission has the authority to make that decision. Michele McPherson explained that since there is no definition in the ordinance to specify how close two components of a sign need to be considered one sign or two signs. She stated that when observing the front of the building, it appears to be two signs. Commissioner Schuster felt that the Commission has some flexibility to determine whether or not there are two signs on the front of the building, and that calling it two signs is literal enforcement of the ordinance and would be detrimental to the • business.