PL PACKET 01191988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 1 Councilmember Eftrooth told the sign representative that he perceived 2' the sad thing in this case was that if the signage had been done 3 properly, there would probably have been no problem getting a second 4 sign because of the restaurant' s corner location. He and Councilmem- 5 ber Marks both commented that they perceived the City' s complicity in 6 the error had to be taken into account as well. 7 Councilmember Ranallo underscored that the Commission had only 8 "recommended" the Council give the applicants the extra 41 square feet 9 on the front which with the 64 square feet on the roof sign, actually 10 represented a variance for 105 square feet, almost double what the 11 ordinance allowed. 12 Council Swayed by Photos of Building From Three -Roadways 13 After seeing the above and hearing Mr . Gow say all the -electrical for 14 the front sign was housed in the roof sign, which had already been 15 made up, some of the Councilmembers indicated a different perspective 16 on the issue: '17 Ranallo: indicated he could see from the photos that the restaurant 18 would be "completely naked on one side 19 Marks : told Mr. Farrell the Council certainly wanted him to be �0 successful; 21 agreed the photos illustrated lack of identification from 22 Highway 88 . 23 Makowske : indicated she wanted assurance that there would be no other 24 copy except "Mickey D' s" on the roof sign and no other 25 types of signage including window signs on the restaurant. 26 Roof Sign Allowed by 4 to 1 Vote 27 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to approve the Planning commis- 28 sion findings related to the front sign on Mickey D' s Family Res- 29 taurant, 2905 Kenzie Terrace, and to grant an additional variance to 30 allow the proposed 64 square foot sign to be erected on the east side 31 only of the existing roof sign structure with no other signage on the 32 building at all. 33 Before the vote was taken, the following objections were raised: 34 Mr. Childs : 35 *indicated he was not denying staff had made a mistake by accept- 36 ing erroneous calculations of square footage for the proposed 37 signage ; but • 11