Laserfiche WebLink
• 1 Mr. Farrell indicated he had "already spent $100,000 fixing the <br /> 2 building up" and said he would have never spent that kind of money <br /> 3 without believing he would get adequate signage. Mr. Gow indicated he <br /> 4 perceived the Commission should take the fact that the signs were <br /> 5 made locally, weren' t "chintzy" and were "the best in the country" <br /> 6 when deciding on the variance. <br /> 7 No one else was present to provide further input and the Chair <br /> 8 closed the hearing at 8:09 P.M. for development of a recommendation to <br /> 9 the Council. <br /> 10 Franzese: perceived the applicants had negotiated in good faith for <br /> 11 the front sign which is already up; <br /> 12 indicated it might be a matter of educating staff further <br /> 13 regarding the sign ordinance so miscommunications related to <br /> 14 signage could be avoided in the future; <br /> 15 said as she saw it, by ordinance calculation, there were <br /> 16 already 141 square feet of signage where the ordinance only <br /> 17 allows 100 and the applicants were now asking for a variance <br /> 18 for an additional 64 square feet by the City' s calculations, <br /> 19 27 by their own; <br /> 20 reiterated that the community was glad to see the new rest- <br /> *1 aurant come in but there was a definite conflict with the <br /> 22 Sign Ordinance. <br /> 23 Madden: said he felt if the applicants were given approval for 82 <br /> 24 square feet of signage by their calculations unless there' s <br /> 25 a reason for doubting their word, the Commission should <br /> 26 start from that premise. <br /> 27 Childs: indicated he had confirmed that 82 square feet was what Mr. <br /> 28 Hamer had approved with the permit dated November 18th, the <br /> 29 day after the hearing; <br /> 30 again read the City Ordinance which he thought sign com- <br /> 31 panies usually consulted before proposing signage; <br /> 32 considering that the drawing for the roof sign talked about <br /> 33 borders, etc. , indicated he thought the Commission had to be <br /> 34 considering a variance for 64 square feet of signage; <br /> 35 reiterated that the notice of the hearing had said 27 <br /> 36 square feet of roof signage based on the sign company' s <br /> 37 October 30th letter, but the drawing for the 8 X 8 foot <br /> 38 sign had not been seen before Tim Gow distributed it at the <br /> 39 hearing and told exactly how the City Ordinance would <br /> 40 calculate the surface. <br /> • <br /> 5 <br />