Laserfiche WebLink
. . <br /> -9- <br /> • 1 The discussion of the Morris sign resumed with Commissioner Bowerman <br /> 2 saying it was definite in his mind that the Craig Morris sign was <br /> 3 .intended to be only temporary in nature and that it was permitted in <br /> 4 lieu of permanent signage for the rest of the P.U.D. project, when, or <br /> 5 if, such a project was. developed for the rest of the Hedlund property <br /> 6 along Silver Lake Road. The Commissioner stated further that the Morris <br /> 7 sign didn' t come anywhere close. to the criteria set for a commercial <br /> 8 business. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Motion by Commissioner Franzese ' and seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund <br /> 11 to recommend the Manager be authorized to follow the course of action <br /> 12 stated in his June 7th letter to Mr. Morris if the barber shop pro- <br /> 13 prietor fails to take down. the sign which is in violation of the <br /> 14 ordinance . (within 30 days) staff be directed to remove it, after con- <br /> 15 sulting with the City Attorney. <br /> 16 ' <br /> 17 Motion carried unanimously. �. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 There were four proposals listed in the agenda for which the Commissioners F <br /> 20 were asked to give concept reviewal and recommendations to the proponents . <br /> 21 Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he believed four at one meeting were <br /> 22 too many, especially .in view of the number of hearings which had been <br /> 23 scheduled for the same evening. Mr . Childs said he would keep that <br /> 24 in mind in the future. ' <br /> 25 <br /> 26 The first was a request from Mr. and Mrs . Eugene DeKanick, 3109 Wilson FF <br /> 27 Street N.E. for some direction regarding their proposal to expand their <br /> • t. <br /> 28 dining area on the south. side of their home out two feet at the same time <br /> 29 they construct a three season porch. on the back of .the house on the <br /> 30 same side, which would require no 'variance from the City. - Mr. DeKanick <br /> 31 indicated they wanted a .larger- dining room to accommodate large family <br /> 32 dinners and he could not see why his neighbor to the south objected to <br /> 33 the expansion because the dining room only faces the neighbors ' garage. <br /> 34 This neighbor was the only one who did -not sign the letter of approval <br /> 35 he took around the neighborhood, Mr. DeKanick said. Mr. Childs had <br /> 36 verified in his June 15th memorandum on the request that the neighbor <br /> 37 in question had strongly objected. to their proposal to come within 3 <br /> 38 feet of the property line. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 The Commissioners were polled for their preliminary reaction to the <br /> 41 proposal. <br /> 42 <br /> X4.3 Commiss.ioner.s_Hans.enand Wagner-had-no-objections-to the-propos-al - <br /> 44 <br /> 45 Commissioner Bjorklund said he had walked between the. properties at <br /> 46 3109. and 3107 and perceived it was a tight fit in that area and that <br /> 47 the expansion might be considered a privacy encroachment and could make <br /> 48 access -between the houses difficult. He p.erceived.' there no real hard- <br /> 49 ship but only an inconvenience for the applicant if the request is denied. <br /> 50 <br /> 51Commissioner Franzese believed the Commission should seriously consider <br /> •52 the neighbors ' objections and perceived the applicant had not satis- <br /> 53factorily addressed the three conditions under which such a variance can <br /> 54 be granted. <br /> 55 <br />