PL PACKET 07171984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i -9- • I 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 temporary in nature 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 :Commiss.ioner 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 takedown 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 ere 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 request 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 43 Commissioners 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 is denied. 50 51,Commrs,sioner 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