Laserfiche WebLink
rioted- that the pylon 'didn'_t . even match the color .or- letter- <br /> ing on the' .existing .building. �4 <br /> 3 Wagner : questioned whether condemnation -proceedings might not have <br /> 4 already started when Rapid Oil took over the property; <br /> 5 was told by the Manager that with public hearings starting . <br /> 6 way back in the 70 ' s on the project, he was quite certain <br /> 7 references to the widening would have had to be included <br /> 8 in the title investigation which preceded Rapid Oil ' s acqui- <br /> 9 sition of that property; <br /> 10 indicated he agreed with other Commissioners ' observations <br /> 11 during the November 17th hearing, that even without the <br /> 12 pylon, Rapid Oil enjoyed better visibility than the <br /> 13 neighboring businesses; <br /> 14 concluded by stating he perceived the pylon had to come down <br /> 15 because the business is not a gas station and the sign is <br /> 16 now in violation of the City Ordinance relating to free- <br /> 17 standing signs . <br /> 18 Commissioners Madden, Werenicz , and London concurred that the pylon <br /> 19 sign should be removed in the following motion: <br /> Commission Recommendation <br /> 21 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Werenicz to recommend the Council :deny <br /> 22 the request from Rapid Oil Change for a variance from the provisions <br /> 23 of the City Sign Ordinance which allows free-standing signs for only <br /> 24 gas stations but to allow them to retain the non-conforming free- <br /> 25 standing sign at 3701 Silver Lake Road until their remodeling is <br /> 26 completed sometime in the early spring with the stipulation that the <br /> 27 sign -must be removed upon completion of remodeling but no later than <br /> 28 June 1 , 1988 . In recommending denial , the Planning Commission finds <br /> 29 that since the business no longer sells gas , the pylon sign would be <br /> 30 in violation of the exceptions for gas stations stated in the Sign <br /> 31 Ordinance . <br /> 32 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 33 Commission Concurs With Concept of Low Profile Development of American <br /> 34 Monarch Property <br /> 35 In their agenda packet , Commissioners had been provided with copies of <br /> 36 the October 21st request from American Monarch manager, Ed Fiore ; site <br /> 37 drawings of the plant property at 2801-37th Avenue N.E. ; and minutes <br /> 38 of the meetings early in 1979 where both the Planning Commission and <br /> 39 Council had extensively explored further development of the property <br /> 40 with a large number of the neighbors . <br /> • <br /> 11 <br />