PL PACKET 09181984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f w -3- Motion by Counclman: Ranallo .and seconded by.:Gouncilman: Makowske to grant the necessary variance to the Sign Ordinance to permit the.-St. 'Anthony Court. Home- ownersAssociation to erect on their property along Silver Lake Road the .free standing. monument type . sign as proposed in the Pine Cone Nursery site plans sub- mitted for such a sign June 19, -1984, and the -sketch of the signage which had been included in the August 21 , 1984 agenda packet;- contingent upon the sign's overall heightnot exceed-ying 60 inches from.t:h�e base grade, and that all :setbacks frot-`?; : :_;.` the right-of-ways be maintained as proposed by Chester Krumm. The Council finds, as did the Planning Commission, that: 1 . This is the sign for the Hedlund P.U.D. in the Sign Ordinance for which the precedent has been set throughout the City; 2. The sign meets the general quality and design criteria set for such signage; and 3. The Council and the Planning Commission have taken into consideration the fact that there was no opposition to the request expressed during any of the hearings on the matter. Before a vote was taken there was a very involved discussion of the proposal , as it did,. or did not, relate to the Craig & Company signage to the north, and whether the Commission intended, with the reference to the townhome signage being "the sign for the P.U.D. ", to preclude any signage at all for the barber/ beauty shop. • Commissioner Bjorklund told Councilman Marks there might have been an indirect reference to :the Craig & Company signage in the. phrase, but that _t.he --Comm i-s-s i.o n . had -nbt considered it to be a germane question, -since they had, during their June 19th meeting, recommended that staff be directed to take down the existing beauty shop sign because of its damaged condition and because it was not in conformance with the City Sign Ordinance. Mr. Childs responded by saying he had taken no action on the June direction because he thought the matter should be clarified further since it was hard for him to understand how a City could take away signage which is necessary for an established business. He said he was not with the City when the signage was originally permitted, and was having a hard time keeping the issues of the two usages separated in his mind. Craig Morris, the proprietor of the business in question, was present. Before he spoke, the Mayor stated that, in his own mind, there was no question but that any type of business which operates out of what is Mr� .Morris ' shop would have to have some sort of business identification. Mr. Morris proceeded at great length to attempt to justify his signage as permanent, recalling that, at one time, on a date he could not identify, for which he and his associates had hired their own stenographer to take notes, the Council had taken up the consideration of signage for the building he was converting to a barber/beauty shop at 3909 Silver Lake Road in relation to the future development of- the rest of the Hedlund property north of that-.building. The hair stylist told the Counci-1 that when- those notes were consulted after that meeting, it was noted that, what: Mr. Morris considered to be- a `vital statement from Mayor Sundland, • was not reported in the official minutes -of that. meeting. According.-to Mr. Morris, "Bob Sundland stated at that time, that he believed the City would have to give Craig, a sign and whoever came into -the P.U.D. after him, would have to apply for a special use permit (for signage) ". This statement was made, Mr. Morris said, in response to `Mr. Marks asking whether a temporary .sign was .going to be given to Mr. Morris".