Laserfiche WebLink
1 -9- <br /> 2 A sketch of the elevations of the new store which, it was agreed, had <br /> 3 not been presented at either the Commission hearing or Council <br /> 4 consideration October 28th, was also included. <br /> 5 The informal discussion which followed brought out the following <br /> 6 comments: <br /> 7 Madden -said he had been very surprised when what he thought was a <br /> 8 "remodeling project" turned out to be a complete removal of <br /> 9 all but the foundation and floors of the existing store. <br /> 10 Childs -gave the Chair Pro Tem the signage which the store would be <br /> 11 allowed under the Ordinance and added the instances where the <br /> 12 City has allowed a second sign when a store fronts on two <br /> 13 streets. Mr. Childs later confirmed that the store is be- <br /> 14 tween platted streets, a service road Sunset and Highway 88; <br /> 15 -also confirmed that the store size had gone from 693 square <br /> 16 feet to 1,100 square feet with the new addition; <br /> 17 -estimated the total current signage to be about 150+ square <br /> 18 feet which is not much above what would be allowed by vari- <br /> 19 ance for two signs. <br /> 00 Plaisted -said the sign on top of the building is 6 X 8. The sign on <br /> 21 the back of the building before the remodeling was 8 X 10 and <br /> 22 the signage on front was a "Blizzard" sign which was up for <br /> 23 many years; <br /> 24 <br /> 25 -agreed the plans which had been given the Commission at the <br /> 26 October 21st meeting were a sketch of the remodeling plans <br /> 27 and not the sketch in the agenda packet that night; <br /> 28 -insisted the Commission had been shown pictures of another <br /> 29 Dairy Queen store showing both sides of the proposed build- <br /> 30 ing, including two signs in the mansard roof, during the <br /> 31 hearing; <br /> 32 -insisted pictures had never been returned to him. <br /> 33 Werenicz -said his recollection of the October 21st meeting was that <br /> 34 the big issue had been whether the rotating sign would <br /> 35 remain; <br /> 36 -said he certainly hadn' t envisioned the extent of the "remo- <br /> 37 deling" which had followed and had come away from the meeting <br /> 38 thinking only the rotating sign and one other wall sign had <br /> 39 been agreed to; <br /> 0 -said he was certain _ "no one in the Commission had envisioned <br /> 1 the building coming down. " <br />