My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL MINUTES 07211987
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
1987
>
PL MINUTES 07211987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/31/2015 8:40:40 AM
Creation date
12/30/2015 5:50:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
21
SP Folder Name
PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1987
SP Name
PL MINUTES 07211987
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
•1 -10- <br /> 2 Plaisted -certainly wouldn' t have spent $9,000 on those signs unless he <br /> 3 was certain the . City was going to allow them; <br /> 4 -considered the building permit he was issued as the authori- <br /> 5 zation of the signage as well as the construction project. <br /> 6 Childs -indicated he was also surprised when he saw the entire build- <br /> 7 ing gone but upon looking at the sketch the City had been <br /> 8 provided at the hearing could see where with the elimination <br /> 9 of the space within the dotted lines "there probably wasn' t <br /> 10 much left of the old building in that sketch either. " <br /> 11 Wagner -said he could see that where the City could say that, with <br /> 12 the building gone, the rotating sign was no longer "grand- <br /> 13 fathered in" and would require a variance to put it back, as <br /> 14 stated by Commissioner Madden during the October 21st hear- <br /> 15 ing. <br /> 16 Childs -said from an objective view, since he was not present at the <br /> 17 hearing, the reality of the situation was that there were <br /> 18 obviously differences of opinion of what happened at the <br /> 19 hearing; the building and signs are up; and it now remains to <br /> 20 determine. what the City' s position is related to the signs <br /> 411 that are there. <br /> 22 Plaisted -reiterated that the building permit he held in his hands was <br /> 23 "your OK of these plans" ; <br /> 24 -said his perception was "I 've been there since 1974. I up- <br /> 25 dated the store to make it a respectable place and since <br /> 26 I 've done this, I 've gotten nothing but heat from the City. " <br /> 27 Werenicz -said he wanted to be the first to compliment Mr. Plaisted on <br /> 28 the remodeling job with which "I couldn' t be more pleased" , <br /> 29 but the fact remains that the Commission had come away from <br /> 30 the October 21st hearing believing they had only approved the <br /> 31 retention of the rotating sign on the roof and one other <br /> 32 additional sign. <br /> 33 Madden -told Mr. Plaisted he perceived part of the confusion came <br /> 34 from the construction letter to the store owner which said <br /> 35 that "at some point after starting construction, they were <br /> 36 notified by someone from the City that this building could <br /> 37 have two signs" ; <br /> 38 -asked who that someone was and how that had come about. <br /> 39 Plaisted -indicated he had come away from the hearing with the impres- <br /> 40 sion his signage was alright and had talked to Larry Hamer <br /> a1 about it later; <br /> 42 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.