07-16-1990 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes July 16, 1990 Page 7 e Ms. Szklarski indicated that the peti t~uner has requested a variance for wall signage located on the building at 17119 Highway 10. She stated that according to the City's ordinance, the amount of wall signage allowed is a maximum of 100 feet and the applicant is requesting a variance to allow 228 square feet of wall signage. She indicated that the hardship, stated by the applicant, is due to the fact that the property is located nine feet lower than adjoining property owners and, therefore, he needs more signage in order for the sign to be visible. Mary Eberley, Planning Commission representative, indicated that the Planning Commission reviewed the request and found that a hardship did not exist because the sign could be raised an additional nine feet to overcome the hardship stated by the applicant. Because of this, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the variance. e Mr. Ken Snyder, Owner of Snyder Auto Sales, stated that he had called the City and requested the maximum amount of signage allowed for a free standing sign. He was quoted 64 square feet as being the maximum amount of signage allowed. Mr. Snyder informed the Council that he proceeded to order a 64 square foot sign and three days after the sign was up, the City's ordinance changed to allow 150 square feet. H<.: indicated to the Council that had he received word from staff, during his request of maximum signage allowed, regarding the fact that the sign ordinance was being considered, he would have held off on ordering the sign and ordered the maximum footage allowed. Mr. Snyder further indicated that his property is lower than adjoining property owners. The Building and Zoning Administrator stated that the freestanding sign issue has nothing to do with the variance request for wall sign. Mayor Tralle opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against the matter, Mayor Tralle closed the public hearing. Councilmember Schuldt stated that the City should follow the sign ordinance. Councilmember Holmgren stated that he drove by the area and was not offended by any of the signage on the building. He further indicated that he felt the miscommunication between City staff and the applicant was a hardship. COUNCILMEMBER HOLMGREN MOVED TO GRANT THE VARIANCE FOR A WALL SIGNAGE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN INCONSISTENT PATTERN OF SIGNAGE THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND THAT A VARIANCE WILL NOT HARM THE SIGN ORDINANCE AND fURTHER BASED ON THE HARDSHIP DUE TO MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT. COUNCILMEMBER DOBEL SECONDED THE MOTION. e Councilmember Schuldt stated that Councilmember Holmgren did not find a legal hardship in order grant the variance. He stated that if this variance is granted, the City Council would be under pressure to grant other variances with the same hardship as quoted by Councilmember Holmgren.