Laserfiche WebLink
�1 Gow: interjected that Mr. Hamer had seen the drawing of the <br /> 2 sign drawn to scale but without dimensions indicated on it. <br /> 3 Wagner: agreed that the Commission had to accept the front sign as <br /> 4 a "legal approved" sign but did not have to agree it was <br /> 5 "an 82 square foot sign, but rather whatever size our <br /> 6 ordinance says it is. " <br /> 7 Madden: said that was right, but in considering a variance, "the <br /> 8 City had to consider 82 square feet is up there now. " ; <br /> 9 agreed 64 square feet in addition to the 82 would be "too <br /> 10 much" but didn't have a firm feel for approving or dis- <br /> 11 approving a variance for a second sign. <br /> 12 Werenicz: found it "irritating" that this was almost a repeat of what <br /> 13 happened at the Dairy Queen where a businessman had spent <br /> 14 money on signs based on erroneous information from a City <br /> 15 official; <br /> 16 indicated he would consider the existing sign to be 141 <br /> 17 square feet, which exceeds the City ordinance and not <br /> 18 grant a variance for any more signage. <br /> 19 Wagner: agreed the existing sign might be a "legal" sign which is <br /> 20 141 square feet, according to our ordinance and therefore <br /> On more than the 100 square feet allowed that business, making <br /> 22 it "in effect a variance, and all we should grant for this <br /> 23 building. " <br /> 24 Hansen: agreed with that assumption, saying he had driven all around <br /> 25 the area and perceived the exposure is there and saw no <br /> 26 location from which identification would be missing; <br /> 27 said signage would be a key factor in the redevelopment of <br /> 28 that particular area and the city was in fact talking about <br /> 29 decreasing the amount of retail which would be replaced with <br /> 30 housing; <br /> 31 indicated he perceived it would be a mistake to start in- <br /> 32 creasing signage from what the ordinance allowed now and <br /> 33 could be a detriment to the new development going into the <br /> 34 shopping center; <br /> 35 concurred that an error had been made but said he didn' t <br /> 36 find the sign which had gone up to be offensive. But stated <br /> 37 does find the pylon structure on the roof offensive even <br /> 38 without signage. <br /> 39 London: generally agreed with Commissioners who have said the Com- <br /> 40 mission should acknowledge this to be a legal sign which is <br /> •41 already approved by the City Building Inspector; <br /> 6 <br />