PL PACKET 01191988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

sm: 91 had recommended the Council grant a variance for addit- 2 ional signage on the east side of the existing roof 3 sign; 4 drew attention to the Commission' s November 17th hear- s ing on the signage and the minutes report of dif- 6 ferences which had arisen related to how the signage 7 should be calculated; 8 reported that within two days of the hearing the appli- 9 cants had requested and received a permit . from Mr. 10 Hamer for an 1182 square foot" Mickey D' s Family .Rest- 11 aurant sign which they immediately put up on the front 12 of the building; 13 indicated that during the November 30th meeting, the 14 applicants had stated they perceived that since the 15 permit gave the signs size as 82 sq. ft. they needed a 16 variance for only the difference between that size and 17 the 100 allowed by the ordinance plus 'the roof sign 18 which they considered to be 27 sq. ft. 19 Commission Recommends No Additional Signage from What the Restaurant 20 Already Has _1 The Commission representative told the Councilmembers a majority of 2 the Commissioners concurred that the existing signage exceeded the 23 ordinance requirements by 41 square feet, but felt since staff had 24 erroneously accepted that size to be 82 square feet and had issued a 25 permit for that size, the applicants should be allowed to keep the 26 front sign but recommended no additional signage on any other part of 27 the building. Commissioner Madden pointed out that this left the 28 restaurant with signage only on the front of the building, which 29 could not be seen from either St. Anthony Boulevard or Highway 88 . 30 He also said although it was perceived this building only had streets 31 on two sides , he thought a strong case could be made for a third 32 because, except for the strip_ of land which the Highway Department 33 owned, there was no development at all between the building and St. 34 Anthony Boulevard. 35 The Commissioner also reiterated that the City Manager had told the 36 Commissioners he thought case law indicated "administrative error 37 didn' t make something legal. " He concluded his report by saying it 38 had been his perception that the feeling on the Commission had been 39 that something might have been worked out to get signage on the east 40 side had the owner waited until after the next Commission meeting to . 41 put up his signage . 42 43 Staff Report 44 Mr . Childs told the Councilmembers the sign company had come up with �5 a total front sign surface by calculating the size of words , letters , 7