Laserfiche WebLink
1 Queen owners to keep the signage they have on the two sides of the new • <br /> 2 mansard roof on their. building at 2612 Highway 88 but to deny the <br /> 3 retention of the rotating roof sign on top of the building. In <br /> 4 granting the variance for the logos and lettering on the mansard roof , <br /> 5 the Council finds that: <br /> 6 1. A particular hardship to the applicant would result if the strict <br /> 7 letter of the ordinance regulations are adhered to because the <br /> 8 building' s size seems to call for more signage for a building <br /> 9 which fronts on two platted streets and has traffic flowing <br /> 10 around three sides, making that parcel unique to that particular <br /> 11 area and neighborhood; <br /> 12 2. Granting this variance will not be detrimental to the public <br /> 13 welfare or injurious to other properties in the same area; <br /> 14 3 . No public expressions of opposition to the variance being granted <br /> 15 had been presented during the Planning Commission or Council <br /> 16 hearings on this issue. <br /> 17 In denying the retention of the 4 X 6 foot rotating sign on the roof, <br /> 18 the Council finds that: <br /> 19 1. The grandfather clause under which the Dairy Queen had been <br /> 20 allowed to keep the sign after the new Sign Ordinance had been <br /> 21 written, no longer applies because the building had been com- • <br /> 22 pletely leveled and rebuilt in 1986 ; <br /> 23 2. This parcel could not be considered to be unique enough to over- <br /> 24 ride possible injury to other property owners in an area where 'a <br /> 25 strong precedent for disallowing ' that type of signage had <br /> 26 already been established; and <br /> 27 3 . Sufficient hardship had not been demonstrated to justify granting <br /> 28 a variance for a type of signage not allowed other property <br /> 29 owners in the same area. <br /> 30 Voting on the motion: <br /> 31 Aye: Ranallo, Marks, Enrooth, Makowske. . <br /> 32 Nay: Sundland. <br /> 33 Motion carried. <br /> 34 Council Concurs With Commission Tabling TCF Expansion Request <br /> . 35 The general consensus was that allowing the proposed expansion would <br /> 36 probably not cure the parking and traffic problems at the Silver Lake <br /> 37 Road site and that further study of those problems was necessary. <br /> 8 <br />