04/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

instance. Aside' from the issue of access, Mr. Nolte continued, the billboard was located on property on which only identity signs were al lowed, outlying commerci,al. Councilman Murray asked for clarification of the relatiOJlship between this issue ~, and the variance requested by Holiday Inn and the possibility of other variances .., in the future should this one be approved. He also wondered whether there was any general relationship between this issue and previous requests from the Red Carpet Motel and Pape' for variances to permit signs that otherwise would not be allowed because they would have been considered a more highway Qriented type sign. . Mr. Nolte answered that the Holiday Inn varianc'e request was a question of computing allowable size of identity signs based only on highway oriented street frontage (Coburg Road). No additional sign area was allowed because of the property's being adjacent also to I-lOs. With regard to the other requests, the Red Carpet sign was in the wrong sign district, and the Pape' sign was a question of height. Councilman Murray said the Red Carpet and Pape' appeared similar, that the thrust of those requests was that the property owner wanted to more directly addres~ highway signing. Assistant Manager clarified the matter of future decisions hinging on the one made on this sign. He said it did not necessarily follow that the Council would be con- sidering other decisions of the Sign Board. However, the interpretation the Council at this meeting set on "frontage" and other technical terms would to some extent control the Sign Board's actions on other variance requests now before it. Councilman Keller asked if the property was in fact a commercial property and the difference from a highway oriented area. Mr. Nolte answered that the property was zonedC-2 with highway oriented sign district adjacent to the I-ISO route. The question is the fact that there is no access to 1-105, therefore the property has not technical frontage. - Councilman Bradley asked if the staff appeal was on the basis of nonconformity with the setback requirements or because the sign was inappropriate in this particular district and what options were available to the Council in making its decision. Assistant Manager answered that staff thought the sign was nonconform- ing on both counts. The appeal was based on that part of the Sign Board's deci- sion allowing the billboard to remain. The Board determined that the setback variance would not be granted and that the sign would have to be moved. The options to the Council, he said, were to allow it to remain but requiring that it be moved, or requiring that it be removed altogether. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to uphold the appeal and instruct staff to prepare findings supporting the upholding of the appeal (deny- ing the variance). In making the motion Mr. Murray said he felt precedent had been set.in other cases of a general nature that really dictated not to allow the variance. And he shared the general concern that granting the variance would open the door to what could be widespread misuse of the sign ordinance. He thought careful attention should be given to consistency in maintaining a vigilant, watchdog role over the sign code. Mayor Anderson agreed and noted that the success of the sign code over the years had been due to the Sign Board's upholding the "letter of the law." Rigid interpretation was necessary in this type code, he said, because every variance, every relaxation would lead to more and more and eventually return the city to the same problems existing prior to adoption of the ordinance. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilmen Williams and Haws abstaining. . 4/14/75 - 4 ISle