CC PACKET 05221984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• -9- 1 The discussion of - the Morris sign,.' resumed: with Commissioner Bowerman 2. saying,:. it- was definite in. •his=_:mind,.,that the Craig.. Morris sign-was_ - 3 intended. to be only tempora-ry- dn. na-ture- and that it was permitted: .in 4 lieu -of- permanent signage for--the- rest of the P.U.D. project, -when, or 5 if, .such a project was developed for the rest- of the : Hedlund- property 6 along Silver Lake Road. The Commissioner stated further that the Morris 7 sign didn' t come anywhere -close to the criteria set for a commercial 8 business. 9 10 Motion by Commissioner Franzese and seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund 11. to recommend the Manager ,be authorized to follow .the course. of action - 12 stated in. his June 7th letter, -to- Mr.. Morris if the barber shop pro-, 13 prietor fails to take down the sign which is in violation of --the 14 ordinance (within 30 -days) staff be directed to remove it, after con- 15 sulting with the City Attorney. 16 17 Motion carried unanimously. 18 19 There were four proposals listed in the agenda for which the Commissioners 20 were asked to give concept reviewal and recommendations to the proponents. 21 Commissioner Bjorklund indicated �he believed four at one meeting were 22 too many, especially in view of, the number of hearings which had been 23 scheduled for the same evening. Mr. Childs said he would keep that 24 ,in mind in the future. 25 � 26 The first was a req.ues,t._from.-Mr. and Mrs . Eugene DeKanick;- 3109 wilson-- 27 Street N.E. for some direction regarding their proposal to expand their 28 dining area on the south side of their home out two feet at -the same time 29 they construct a three season porch on the back of the house on. the . 30 same side, which would require no variance from the City . Mr. DeKanick 31 indicated they wanted a larger dining room to accommodate .large, family 32 dinners and he could not see why his neighbor to the south objected to 33 the expansion because the-dining room only faces the neighbors ' garage. 34 This neighbor was the only one who did not sign the letter of approval 35 he took around the neighborhood, Mr. DeKanick said, Mr. Childs had 36 verified in his June 15th memorandum on the request that the neighbor 37 in question had strongly objected. to their proposal to come, within` 3 38 feet of the property line. 39 40 The Commissioners were polled for their preliminary reaction. to the. 41 proposal. 42 _43Commissioners Hansen and Wagner had no objections to the proposal . 44 45 Commissioner Bjorklund said he _had walked between the properties at 46 3109 and 3107 and perceived it was : a tight-fit in that area and that .47.the .expansion- might be . considered . a privacy encroachment and could make 48 access.-between the houses-.difficult. . He perceived there no -real hard= 49 ship but only .an-inconvenience for the -applicant if the -request i's. -denied. 50 '•5;1 Commissioner Franzese °believed the Commission should seriously consider •52 the neighbors ' objections and perceived the applicant had not- satis 53factorily addressed the three -conditions under which such a variance can 54 be granted. 55