Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> 1 Manager Indicates Sign Erected on Front of Restaurant Since Hearing Is <br /> 2 41 Square Feet Larger Than City Ordinance Allows <br /> 3 The Chair continued the November 17th hearing at 7: 42 P.M. by <br /> 4 requesting a staff report on the issues which were involved. <br /> 5 Mr. Childs said he understood the sign company had come to see Mr. <br /> 6 Hamer the day following the hearing when the Manager was not in his <br /> 7 office and the Building Inspector had issued a permit for an 82 square <br /> 8 foot sign based on calculations the sign company had made that they <br /> 9 needed 42 square feet for "Mickey" ; 6 square feet for "D" ; 4 square <br /> 10 feet for " 'S" ; 10-1/2 square feet for "Family" and 19 square feet for <br /> 11 "Restaurant" . <br /> 12 The Manager then read that portion of St. Anthony' s Sign Ordinance <br /> 13 which states that signage should be calculated on the square footage <br /> 14 of the rectangle enclosing all the sign lettering, which in this case, <br /> 15 he said would bring the sign surface up to 141 square feet, 41 square <br /> 16 feet more than the Ordinance would allow for this building with <br /> 17 approximately 50 feet of frontage and calling for a variance of that <br /> 18 much for the sign. <br /> 19 As he had stated at the hearing, the Building Inspector had consulted <br /> 20 him about the signage early in October when the applicant were in Mr. <br /> �1 Hamer' s office. Without knowing the front dimensions, Mr. Childs said <br /> 22 he had advised Mr. Hamer the building would be allowed 2 square feet <br /> 23 for every front foot. If the applicant wanted to keep the roof sign or <br /> 24 put additional signage on the side of the building in addition to the <br /> 25 front sign, he would have to apply for variances for that additional <br /> 26 signage because the City Ordinance only allows one sign per business <br /> 27 with sometimes a variance for a second sign granted for a corner <br /> 28 business. <br /> 29 The November 17th minutes indicated that Tim Gow, the sign represen- <br /> 30 tative that evening, had given the Commissioners a drawing of an 8 X 8 <br /> 31 foot sign reading "Mickey D' s" which the applicant wanted to put up <br /> 32 over one side of the "Mr. Hobo" roof sign and had been specifically <br /> 33 informed that sign surface should actually be 64 square feet, accord- <br /> 34 ing to the ordinance calculations and not 27 square feet as indicated <br /> 35 in the October 30th letter from his company. <br /> 36 The minutes had also indicated that Commissioner Werenicz, noting the <br /> 37 discrepancies between what appeared to be a 200 square foot sign from <br /> 38 the drawings submitted by the sign company and the applicant's <br /> 39 testimony that much less signage was being requested, as well as the <br /> 40 disputed size of the roof sign, had suggested the applicant and his <br /> 41 sign company sit down with staff to ascertain just what would <br /> 42 constitute acceptable signage for St. Anthony. <br /> .40 <br /> 2 <br />