CC MINUTES 02241988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 1 Werenicz confirmed Mr. Childs ' report that much of the same ground 2 being plowed that evening had been part of the "heated" hour and a 3 half discussion the Commission had with the applicant July 21 , 1987 . 4 He indicated confusion as to what should be done now that the 5 expensive signage is all up, had led to the Commissioners, without 6 taking a vote, indicating to Mr. Plaisted that if he would make a 7 formal application for the existing signage, although there was no 8 guaranty, the Commission would probably look favorably upon 9 recommending he be allowed to keep the signage. 10 The Commission representative told the Council that what had happened 11 at the Dairy Queen had a lot do with the Commission' s taking a hard 12 line on the Mickey D' s signage where they perceived a direct 13 parallel. 14 Enrooth commented that even though the perception might now be that 15 the City hadn't really "been taken" on the Dairy Queen signage, he 16 certainly hoped the steps staff had taken to tighten up variance 17 processing procedures would help to prevent future problems like those 18 experienced with the Dairy Queen and Mickey D' s Restaurant signage. 19 Makowske drew attention to page 5 of the October 21st minutes which 20 talked about the pylon sign the Council denied as well as "the logo to 21 be added to the new mansard roof" which she now had no trouble with 22 and although she said she was bothered by having the revolving sign on 43 the roof put back up after the structure was more than 70% changed, 4 called for . a vote on her motion to allow all the signage to remain on 25 the Dairy Queen as recommended by the Planning Commission. 26 Voting on the motion: 27 Aye: Sundland. 28 Nay: Makowske, Ranallo, Enrooth, Marks. 29 Motion not carried. 30 The original plans were compared to those in the agenda packet which 31 had been submitted for commission and Council consideration in 1986 32 before a vote was taken on Councilmember Ranallo' s motion, which he 33 said he was going to make because he perceived the signage on both 34 sides of the building more than adequately identified the Dairy 35 Queen. 36 Mr. Soth suggested it was unnecessary in this case to specify signage 37 size and suggested the Council be very specific in their findings for 38 signage they proposed disallowing or retaining. 39 Council Action 40 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to grant the necessary variance it1 to the City Sign Ordinance requirements which would allow the Dairy 7