Laserfiche WebLink
`-' Mr. Marohn stated they are allowed to repair, maintain or reface the existing sign. It is <br />not being modified enough to bring into conformity. They are modifying the structure, <br />not maintaining or refacing. <br />When asked, Mr. Marohn stated there can be no sign variance, just the sign concept plan. <br />Mr. Derksen stated he has made a point of looking at reader boards in other communities <br />and feels they are not essential to the business and the businesses look much more <br />inviting without. He doesn't like the blinking lights and agrees with the comments made <br />by Chairman Woog in his email. <br />Public Comment: <br />Craig Holland, Super America: He stated he was attending to learn more about the sign <br />ordinance. He had applied for a digital price sign and was denied one; this site has one. <br />He is not sure how they got one. He asked what the future would be for this type of sign. <br />Mr. Marohn explained that the digital price sign will be discussed later. <br />There was no further public comment. Public comment was closed. <br />Mr. Hallan stated they have submitted a nice site plan with 3 independent signs related to <br />the drive -thru. The Menu Board is huge, 4.5' X 9' and located behind the building with <br />�. landscaping around it, as well as the directional sign on West Lake Street. We need to <br />keep the discussion of these signs separate from the freestanding signs. Drive - thru's are <br />not operated without menu signs. The location of the drive -thru is not on the front of the <br />building; the narrow side of the sign faces West Lake Street and is not highly visible. <br />The directional sign is lit. The Pre -menu Board is also hidden on the back side of the <br />building and is 3' X 4.6' in size. <br />Mr. Williams asked about the necessity of two reader boards. Mr. Kaneski stated there is <br />a benefit to the traffic flow to have a`preview board. There is only one window. Mr. <br />Williams was concerned with aesthetic impact and continuity on adjacent parcels. <br />Corporate franchises have their requirements. The City has allowed the franchise and <br />should assume they will have their requirements. The logo itself would probably not <br />meet the ordinance. There are cities that have much more restrictive sign ordinances and <br />franchises adjust their signs. <br />Mr. Kaneski stated that if the sign wasn't in MN/DOT right -of -way they could just reface <br />the existing sign. They are trying to compromise by cutting the sign size down 40 %. <br />Eric Halbert stated there are no major modifications or major construction to the existing <br />sign. Mr. Hallan stated by adding a structural member to support the new top of the sign <br />is major modification. <br />Minutes 6 <br />Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br />March 18, 2010 <br />