Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />November 25, 1986 <br /> <br />Council Business. Continued <br /> <br />not be allowed a ground sign along Silver Lake Road; Item 6 - <br />that the applicant submit a sign plan for the retail center to be <br />adopted by the City under the special use permit process. <br /> <br />Council asked staff to clarify the need for the two added condi- <br />tions; Mattila responded the items would be consistent with <br />earlier council action in regard to the LNR Properties Building; <br />the proposed development would have the same impact on the Rice <br />Creek Shopping Center as the LNR Properties Building; and, <br />therefore. should be regulated through a sign plan. <br /> <br />Mattila stated that the site plan is in compliance with all City <br />Codes. <br /> <br />A discussion of the orientation of the building with Norm Wells, <br />the architect on the project, followed. <br /> <br />Wells inquired about the requirement for no ground sign in the <br />recommendation. Stated that Jim Winkels, Winfield Developments, <br />Inc., expressed to him that he was not in favor of eliminating <br />the ground sign. <br /> <br />Benke pointed out that Winkels stated at the Planning Commission <br />meeting that he did not plan to propose a pylon sign; Mattila <br />responded the requirement was included in response to conversa- <br />tions with the Planning Commission and the City Attorney. Matilla <br />further stated the requirment is necessary to be consistent with <br />the actions taken on the LNR building sign plan, and the Rice <br />Creek Shopping Center sign plan. <br /> <br />Lowell Zitzloff, owner of the LNR building, stated he consented <br />to not having a pylon sign along Silver Lake Road and understood <br />no one else would be allowed to have one either; and noted Winkels <br />stated at the Planning Commission meeting that Winfield Develop- <br />ments, Inc. would not need such a sign. <br /> <br />Benke suggested, in the interest of being consistent with what <br />the City has been asking of the other property owners in the <br />shopping center area, the council proceed with the requirement <br />that there be a sign plan and that the ground sign not be permitted. <br /> <br />Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Schmidt to APPROVE LP-199 SUBJECT <br />TO THE FOUR CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN REPORT 86-300 WITH THE ADDITION <br />OF ITE~ 5 (THE RETAIL CENTER NOT BE ALLOWED A GROUND SIGN ALONG <br />SILVER LAKE ROAD) AND ITEM 6 (THE APPLICANT SUBMIT A SIGN PLAN FOR <br />THE RETAIL CENTER TO BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY UNDER THE SPECIAL USE <br />PERMIT PROCESS). <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Page Eleven <br />