PL PACKET 01191988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 out at the November -17th hearing that the- roof sign was 64 and not .Z7 2 square feet , according to ' the -ordinance; and ( 3 ) he had made it ve, y 3' clear at that meeting that his estimation of the size of the front 4 sign in the ' published Notice of Hearing had been made without his 5 seeing the dimensions and though the sign might encompass .less that 6 200 feet was over the allowable square footage allowed that building. 7 He reiterated that according to ordinance calculations', the front sign 8 was 141 square feet which with the 64 square feet of signage proposed 9 for the roof sign brought the signage up - to 205 square feet, which 10 would be' 105 square feet more than the ordinance allows even .with a 11 variance for a second sign. 12 Mr. Soth affirmed the City Manager' s correction of Councilmember 13 Marks ' assumption that the roof sign would. only be 27 square feet, by 14 telling him in this case the entire surface of one side of what had 15 previously been a "Mr. Hobo" sign would have to be considered for a 16 variance. 17 Councilmembers Chide Sign Company Representative 18 Mr. Gow told the Council that he alone had been responsible for 19 making the wrong calculations when he had first met with Mr. Hamer. 20 when he explained that he was considering "Mickey D' s" and "Family 21 Restaurant" as two separate signs because they weren' t connected, 22 Councilmember Ranallo told him "you' re in the sign business and should 23 have known better. " The Councilmember then indicated he thought the 24 Council should "do exactly what the Commission had recommended. ". : . . 25 Mr . Childs also explained the way the sign company had arrived at 82 26 square feet had been to measure "Mickey" , the "D" , the apostrophe, the 27 "s" and "Family" and "Restaurant" separately and indicated that if Mr. 28 Gow had actually measured "Mickey D' s" and "Family Restaurant" 29 separately, they would have come up with exactly 100 square feet, 30 which is what the ordinance allows that building. 31 Mayor Sundland agreed, saying that was exactly how the minutes had 32 reported Mr. Childs ' calculations. Mr. Gow then admitted that was 33 how he had measured the signage. 34 Councilmember Makowske told Mr. Gow she was still having difficulty 35 trying to see where Mr . Farrell had gotten the 9 ' square feet he 36 thought he still needed because even after granting that the front 37 sign was 82 square feet, 'leaving 18 feet for a variance, and with the 38 erroneous figure of 27 square feet for the roof sign, she had calcu- 39 lated a variance for 45 square feet would be ' necessary. Mr. Gow 40 told her he had thought another issue came into play for this 41 multifronted building where other cities normally measured the sides 42 which faced the streets . He said he now knew that was. not the way 43 the City figured signage . He then explained that to save time , he 44 had met with Mr . Hamer right away, but hadn' t gotten a copy of the 45 ordinance until later on. 10