PL PACKET 01191988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

( 01 never, "spend, the'money '.I .did on sianage ' if I knew. there was any chance 2 I would- be throwing it out the window later on. " 3 He indicated he had "a lot :of hard feelings" about the way he had 4 been treated at the first Planning Commission meeting where "before I 5 had even presented anything at all, I was attacked by my sign being 6 called tacky. " As a way of rebuttinq that contention, the restaurant 7 owner reiterated that he had "paid top dollar for the best sign I 8 could buy which wouldn ' t hurt anybody at all. " He said his personal 9 investigation had indicated the past business had not done anything 10 in the past 7 or 8 years "because of the ' Hobo ' junk which has been up 11 there and the previous owners had not done the right things or 12 invested in the right ways . " He indicated he perceived it had been 13 "bad advertising" which had caused the previous owners to fail. 14 Mr. Farrell indicated that had he known he was going to end up with 15 signage on only one side of a building with four different angles of 16 traffic, he would have put the "Family Restaurant" on the east side. 17 Having already spent $5 , 600 to have the front sign made, he said he 18 was "totally confused" to find out at the first hearing that his 19 signage was all wrong. 20 The applicant told Councilmember Makowske it had been the sign company 21 and not he who had gotten a copy of the City' s Sign Ordinance but he 22 insisted he would never have purchased and had three signs made 03 without first getting an O.K. from Mr. Hamer. 24 Mr . Farrell reported the "vibes" he had gotten at the first he 25 where his reader sign was called "tacky" caused him to drop that idea 26 altogether along with between $4 , 000 and $5 , 000 which he would lose by 27 doing so. The restaurant owner indicated he hadn.' t expected the City 28 to object to a variance for only 9 extra feet of signage since he 29 would be replacing "a real ugly pylon sign" with a roof sign which 30 couldn' t even be seen from the homes to the west. He explained that 31 it would cost him a lot of money to take the existing roof sign down 32 especially since that would mean redoing all the electrical for the 33 other signs. 34 when Mr. Farrell reported that the "Mickey D' s" sign he proposed 35 putting on the east side of the existing roof sign was 27 square 36 feet , Mr. Childs indicated these were the sign company' s calculations 37 and that the City' s was 64 square feet, which had been fully explained 38 to both Mr Gow and Mr . Farrell at the November 17th hearing prior 39 to the installation of the front sign. Commissioner Madden' s copy of 40 the November 17th hearing was then passed around to prove that point. 41 when a debate developed as to when the applicants had been told they 42 could meet the ordinance requirements by splitting the front sign into 43 "Mickey D' s" and "Family Restaurant" and a variance sought to put the 44 latter on the east side , Mr. Childs indicated he perceived what was 45 important was that-.-( 1 ) the front sign, although calculated incorrect- 6 ly, had already been approved for a permit; ( 2 ) the applicants found 9