Laserfiche WebLink
1 had recommended the Council grant a variance for addit- <br /> 2 ional signage on the east side of the existing roof <br /> 3 sign; <br /> 4 drew attention to the Commission' s November 17th hear- <br /> 5 ing on the signage and the minutes report of dif- <br /> 6 ferences which had arisen related to how the signage <br /> 7 should be calculated; <br /> 8 reported that within two days of the hearing the appli- <br /> 9 cants had requested and received a permit from Mr. <br /> 10 Hamer for an 1182 square foot" Mickey D' s Family Rest- <br /> 11 aurant sign which they immediately put up on the front <br /> 12 of the building; <br /> 13 indicated that during the November 30th meeting, the <br /> 14 applicants had stated they perceived that since the <br /> 15 permit gave the signs size as 82 sq. ft. they needed a <br /> 16 variance for only the difference between that size and <br /> 17 the 100 allowed by the ordinance plus the roof sign <br /> 18 which they considered to be 27 sq. ft. <br /> 19 Commission Recommends No Additional Signage from what the Restaurant <br /> 20 Already Has <br /> 21 The Commission representative told the Councilmembers a majority of <br /> •22 the Commissioners concurred that the existing signage exceeded the <br /> 23 ordinance requirements by 41 square feet, but felt since staff had <br /> 24 erroneously accepted that size to be 82 square feet and had issued a <br /> 25 permit for that size, the applicants should be allowed to keep the . <br /> 26 front sign but recommended no additional signage on any other part of <br /> 27 the building. Commissioner Madden pointed out that this left the <br /> 28 restaurant with signage only on the front of the building, which <br /> 29 could not be seen from either St. Anthony Boulevard or Highway 88 . <br /> 30 He also said although it was perceived this building only had streets <br /> 31 on two sides, he thought a strong case could be made for a third <br /> 32 because, except for the strip of land which the Highway Department <br /> 33 owned, there was no development at all between the building and St. <br /> 34 Anthony Boulevard. <br /> 35 The Commissioner also reiterated that the City Manager had told the <br /> 36 Commissioners he thought case law indicated "administrative error <br /> 37 didn' t make something legal. " He concluded his report by saying it <br /> 38 had been his perception that the feeling on the Commission had been <br /> 39 that something might have been worked out to get signage on the east <br /> 40 side had the owner waited until after the next Commission meeting to <br /> 41 put up his signage. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 Staff Report <br /> 44 Mr. Childs told the Councilmembers the sign company had come up with <br /> • 45 a total front sign surface by calculating the size of . words, letters, <br /> 7 <br />