CC PACKET 02241988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Commissioner Hansen indicated he perceived the major issues were that • 2 the Commission, without the knowledge that the building would be 3 leveled which voided the roof sign from being grandfathered in, gave 4 the applicant permission to take down the sign while the building was 5 being reconstructed for a drive-through facility as well as the fact 6 that an additional wall sign was erected without the City' s approval. 7 Mr. Childs responded that was the reason he had specifically described 8 all the signage on the building in the February 3rd notice of the 9 hearing on the variance. 10 Commissioner Werenicz indicated he could see no point in rehashing all 11 the grievances the Commission had which had been fully covered at 12 the July 21 , 1987 meeting. He perceived it was up to the Commission 13 to recommend whether the existing signage could remain on the 14 building. The Commissioner said he would be in favor of recommending 15 the Council grant whatever variance is necessary to retain that 16 signage as the applicant had been told to expect if he applied for 17 the variance. 18 Commissioner Hansen responded to the suggestion that the Commission 19 interpret the logo and name lettering as one sign by saying that was 20 not the way the Leslie Paper Company signage had been interpreted. 21 The response was that there had been considerably more distance than 22 5 feet between that logo and the lettering on that building. 23 Commissioner London indicated he was concerned that to interpret this 24 signage any differently might result in an inconsistency with the 25 directions given the owner of Mickey D' s restaurant. 26 Commission Action 27 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Wagner to recommend that the Council 28 grant the necessary sign variance to Albert Plaisted which would 29 allow him to keep the existing signage on the Dairy Queen at 2612 30 Highway 88 , realizing that. by doing so the City would be allowing 92 31 square feet of signage over and above what the Sign Ordinance allows 32 for a building with the frontage this building has. In recommending 33 the variance be granted, the Commission acknowledges the controversy 34 which has surrounded this reconstruction project which has been well 35 documented in Commission and Council minutes since 1986 but finds in 36 its favor that: 37 *the signage is in very good taste 38 *the building is located on two platted streets and actually 39 has traffic going three ways around it and the City has in the 40 past granted variances for additional signage under similar 41 conditions ; 42 *there have been no public expressions of opposition to the sign- 43 age which is on the building and there was no one present at 44 this hearing who opposed granting a variance for its retention. 6