PL PACKET 01191988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

•1 . Mr . Childs recalled specifically ' , .suggesting to the applicant that 2 because the City in the past ha-d. g 'anted a -variance for a second sign 3 for a corner business , he might' want. to.- split the copy he was propos- 4 ing for the front sign into two -separate signs with a 3 X 20 foot ( 60 5 square ' feet) "Mickey D' s" sign. to be put up on the front of the 6 building and a 2 X20 - foot ('40 square feet) "Family Restaurant" sign 7 could be 'placed on the east side since both signs would meet the 8 total 100 square feet of signage the ordinance allowed a building 9 within a 50 foot frontage. 10 The Manager reported he had noticed the front sign was already up when 11 he returned from his Washington D.C. trip and when he looked for the 12 permit in the files found a drawing for a front sign which was 13 designated as having 82 square feet and on which Mr. Hamer had written 14 "sign per sketch, 82 square feet, one sign on front of 'building" 15 before signing. 16 Mr. Childs indicated he was not aware of any municipal ordinance in 17 any city which allowed signage to be calculated the way E. S. I . had 18 calculated the dimensions of this sign ad said he thought most sign 19 people knew that was not the way to calculate signage. He also 20 recalled that Mr . ' Farrell and the sign company representative had 21 been specifically advised that the City ordinance did not allow 22 signage to be calculated that way during the hearing. �3 Gow Testifies Not Unusual for City Ordinances to Allow Signage to .Be _ 4 Calculated The Way He Does It 25 Tom Gow, who had signed the October letter to Mr. Hamer specifying 26 what signage was being requested for the restaurant, said it had been 27 he and not his brother, Tim Gow, who had appeared with Mr . Farrell 28 November. 17th, who had worked with Mr. Farrell on his sign package. 29 He also said it had been he who had met with Mr. Hamer early in 30 October and it was during that meeting that "calculations for the 31 front sign were made for each word specifically and how the sign 32 would be laid out was clarified for Mr. Hamer" , leading to the 33 Building Inspector approving the permit for the sign November 18th. 34 He explained that this type of business sign consists of internally 35 neon lighted columns , known as "channel lettering" , and, in fact , each 36 letter is a fixture which can be considered to be a sign in some 37 cases. He recognized that this differed from the City Ordinance as 38 stated by the City Manager , but wanted it understood that the original - 39 calculations were made "under the supervision of Mr . Hamer" . 40 Mr . Farrell said before he had sianed a check for $5 , 000 for that one 41 sign he had personally gotten verbal assurance from Mr . Hamer that it 42 was - O.K. Mr . Gow added that the Building Inspector had also told them 43 the new copy on the roof sign and the reader board on the .east 44 required variances for which they had applied and paid the required 45 fees . • J