Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Marohn explained the Staff Report. Applicant was represented by Chris Quisberg. <br /> Mr. Hallan stated that this discussion parallels the Dairy Queen discussions. We are not <br /> setting a new precedence; this is what the concept plan is for. <br /> Mr. Derksen asked if we hadn't talked about this before. Mr. Marohn stated that the <br /> Planning Commission had a fairly lengthy discussion on their earlier signs, approving a <br /> certain sign configuration. That was an over-the-counter permit, no issues. That does not <br /> preclude SuperValu from coming back asking for more. There was no variance or <br /> special provisions with their earlier approval. <br /> When Mr. Adams asked if it would be lit, Mr. Quisberg stated they would need to look at <br /> it again; it may need to be a spotlight from above, but will not be digital. <br /> Mr. Adams stated he was comfortable with the signage but the square footage is a <br /> problem. He felt the 33.5 square feet recommended by Staff would be appropriate. <br /> When he asked if anything more than just the price sign was necessary, Mr. Quisberg <br /> stated he had no problem with just the price readers. <br /> Mr. Hallan stated that the grocery store was allowed 10% of the fagade for signage. He <br /> asked what percentage the storefront is at. Mr. Marohn stated that they are well under <br /> 10%for the building itself. Mr. Hallan stated he would like to see the entire plan now, <br /> not more later. Mr. Quisberg stated they have no more requests for signage, other than <br /> for the vacant space indicated on the building sign plan. <br /> A motion was made by Tom Adams, seconded by Cheri Seils,to approve the request for <br /> signage on the canopy up to the allowed 33.75 sq. ft. of signage on each side,the east <br /> side and the west side,based on the following Findings of Fact: <br /> 1. The request for a conditional use permit is for signage on an accessory structure, <br /> which is not allowed by the Ordinance. Section 17-7.1(5)(A)(6) allows for a <br /> conditional use permit and sign concept plan for anything that is not allowed in <br /> the sign section. <br /> 2. All signs, existing and proposed, meet the one foot setback requirement. <br /> 3. The existing signage is in conformance with the sign concept plan, approved by <br /> the Planning Commission April 15, 2010. <br /> 4. The proposal is for four signs. Two of the signs will measure 3' x 15' (45 sq. ft.) <br /> and will read, "Pequot Lakes Fuel Center". The other signs are manual <br /> changeable track system signs and measure 5' x 2.8' (14 sq. ft.). They will be <br /> used to display the price of gasoline. An identification sign and a gas price sign is <br /> being proposed to be placed on both the east and west sides of the canopy. <br /> 5. The applicant is requesting a CUP for a signage that is specifically not allowed in <br /> Section 17-7.1(A)(5). The applicant has submitted a sign concept plan. <br /> 6. The request for is to allow signage to be placed on an accessory structure (gas <br /> canopy). <br /> 7. There have not been any alternatives to the sign request submitted. <br /> MINUTES 2 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> April 28, 2011 <br />