PL PACKET 03151988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 1 Voting on the motion: 2 Aye: Werenicz , Wagner, Brownell, Franzese, Madden. 3 4 Nay: Hansen, London. 5 Motion carried. 6 Following the vote, Commissioner London explained his vote against 7 granting the variance by saying he had concluded after reading the 8 minutes provided in the agenda packet that the issue involved a 9 situation where the applicant had taken advantage of a confusing 10 situation because both Chair Franzese and Commissioner Madden had 11 warned Mr. Plaisted that his roof sign would no longer enjoy a 12 grandfathered in status if more than 70% of the building were 13 removed during reconstruction. The Commissioner said he certainly 14 thought that had happened when the building was leveled. He said he 15 doubted whether the City would have allowed the pylon sign to remain 16 on the building if the Commission and Council had been told at the 17 start that the remodeling involved leveling the building. He 18 perceived a similar situation had occurred with the Mickey D' s 19 signage. 20 Commissioner Hansen agreed this was another case where the Commission 21 was being asked to overlook an applicant ' s ignoring the City or- •22 dinance. He drew a comparison between what had happened in this 23 instance and the request for shopping center signage heard earlier 24 in the evening where the applicants had worked with staff to provide 25 signage which conformed to the ordinance and had waited to put up that 26 signage until they had gotten official approval. 27 TCF Request for Conditional Use Permit/Setback Variance Tabled for 28 Traffic Study 29 At 8 : 20 P.M. , the Chair read the notice of the hearing to consider 30 applications from Twin City Banking and Savings for a conditional use 31 permit to allow expansion of the existing drive-in teller facilities 32 and variance to allow extension of the existing canopy over the 33 drive-in on the north side of the building at 3899 Silver Lake Road 34 to within 31 feet of the north property line where a setback of 35 35 feet is required by ordinance. 36 The notice had been published in the February 3rd Bulletin and mailed 37 to all property owners of record within 350 feet of the subject 38 property. Four of these were present to express concerns that the 39 new facilities might exacerbate the traffic congestion at that 40 location. 41 No one present reported failure to receive the notice of the hearing 42 or objected to its content. • 43 Staff report: Childs reiterated information in his February 12th 7