CC PACKET 03081988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 there had been miscommunications between staff and the applicant in • 2 the case of Mickey D' s which, as far as he could tell, had not been 3 true with the Dairy Queen. 4 As far as he was concerned, the rotating sign on top of the Dairy 5 Queen had . to come down, the Councilmember said. 6 Mrs. Plaisted disputed these remarks, saying the tall copper colored 7 roof on the St. Anthony Dairy Queen was completely new to this area 8 where all other stores of this kind still retain the red barn mansard.. 9 She reiterated the roof and signage on her store is the only type 10 Dairy Queen sells at this time, so she and her husband had no choice 11 but to buy or forget it altogether. She continued to insist her 12 husband and his contractor believed the building permit issued by Mr. 13 Hamer covered the signage as part of. the building plans. 14 Werenicz told Mrs. Plaisted the only recommendation the Commission 15 had made to the Council after the first October 21 , 1986 hearing had 16 been to deny the pylon sign requested in front of the store. As the 17 minutes of that meeting clearly show, although his options for signage 18 were discussed at that meeting, Mr. Plaisted had been warned by two 19 Commissioners that the rotating roof sign would lose its 20 grandfathered in status and was told that although the City ordinance 21 only allowed one sign per store, -he might be allowed "one additional 22 sign because of his location. " The Commissioner commented that was 23 certainly not the same as the current signage on both sides of the 24 building as well as the rotating sign on the top. of the building., • 25 which he agreed, should come down. 26 The Commissioner also told Mrs. Plaisted the difference between the 27 plans presented at the first hearing and those Mr. Plaisted brought to 28 the July 21 , 1987 meeting with the Commissioners certainly confused 29 the issue and reinforced the Commissioners ' recollection that the 30 applicant and his contractor ' s presentation at the October hearing had 31 given them the impression that only a remodeling job was contemplated. 32 Childs , who had not been present for the first hearing, commented that .. 33 he perceived from reading those minutes that Commissioner Hansen had 34 told Mr. Plaisted that although he might be able to put his revolving 35 sign back up on the roof, he would still have to apply for a variance 36 "for any additional wall sign. " 37 Hamer who had taken the City Manager ' s place at the first hearing, 38 told Mrs. Plaisted she and her husband were sill mistakenly insisting 39 the building permit, which he had issued for the structure alone, 40 covered signage as well.. He indicated he always tells applicants 41 signage is a separate issue and perceived the very fact that the 42 applicant had submitted an application for the free-standing sign, 43 which had been denied, indicated he and his contractor knew they had 44 to come to the Commission and Council for sign approval. 6