Laserfiche WebLink
-4- <br /> Although Mr. Morris was uncertain of the year of the incident, he did recall that <br /> • "all but two of you on the Council were there and must remember Cthe Mayor's state- <br /> ment)". Councilman Enrooth told him .he was on that Council , and very much involved <br /> in the sign approval process, and he surmised the date to be sometime in 1980. <br /> Mr. Morris apologized for the sign in front of his shop, which he acknowledge was <br /> an "eyesore", having 'suffered a great deal of damage in the tornado. He requested <br /> assurance that, if he sells his business, the buyers could have signage, although, <br /> he conceded that "they could possibly live with .a smaller sign". The Craig &. <br /> Company owner agreed the townhomes north of him also needed recognition. <br /> Councilman Marks told Mr. Morris it was his recollection that the Council at the <br /> time his sign was being considered, had no idea at all that the property to the <br /> north of him would eventually be developed for townhomes, but rather expected his <br /> shop would become a part of a mini-mall . The P.U.D. was therefore- written to <br /> anticipate one large sign for the entire development, with a temporary sign granted <br /> for the beauty shop. Now that the rest of the P.U.D. had happily gone residential , <br /> the Councilman indicated he agreed with -the Mayor that the time had come to look <br /> at separate signage for Mr. Morris' building. <br /> Councilman Ranallo-concurred with that assessment, adding that such signage would <br /> have to be reduced in size and designed to conform to the City's standards for <br /> free standing signs, and to fit in with the townhome signage next door. <br /> Mr. Morris persisted in his contention that the Mayor's statement, which had not <br /> gotten into the minutes, meant his sign was never intended to be temporary. <br /> Councilman Enrooth indicated there was no confusion in his own mind that the <br /> signage which had been originally granted to Craig Morris- had been anything but <br /> "temporary", no matter what comments, official or otherwise, were made about it <br /> during the meeting in question. <br /> Councilman Makowske, responding to Mr. Morris ' allegations that .the. Planning <br /> Commission had no knowledge of the Mayor's statement, told him she was a Com- <br /> missioner at that time and was certain the Planning Commission had recommended only <br /> "temporary" signage for Mr. Morris' business. However, she stated that she also <br /> recognized there was a need for signage for any business at that location. <br /> Commissioner Bjorklund told the Council he perceived the .Onsensus-`of the current_, <br /> Commission members would be that any business in that area would have to have -some <br /> sort of signage but it would have to conform to the criteria set for free standing <br /> signs. He indicated he didn't consider the dispute about past Council. minutes to <br /> be germane to the question before the Council . <br /> The Mayor told Mr. Morris what he is saying today is no different than what he <br /> said years ago, that the shop would have to have signage, which it has. He told <br /> the hair stylist, "We're not going to tear down your sign. We're just saying it <br /> has to be rebuilt to conform to the City ordinances. <br /> Councilman Ranallo added that he had no recollection of the beauty shop sign ever <br /> being .considered "the sign for the P.U.D. " but, rather, a temporary sign had been <br /> given to Mr. Morris to provide the identification the hair stylist had insisted he <br /> needed to get into business. The intent .at that time, the Councilman said, had <br /> • been to wait until the rest of the Hedlund property was developed, at which time, <br /> the Council could sit down with Mr. Morris and the other use owners to see just <br />