My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC MINUTES 02241988
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1988
>
CC MINUTES 02241988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2016 5:17:20 PM
Creation date
4/19/2016 5:17:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
35
SP Folder Name
CC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1988
SP Name
CC MINUTES 02241988
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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 2 . Two ( 2 ) wall sign units on each side of the <br /> 2 building with 3 X 5 foot Dairy Queen logos and <br /> 3 individual lettering "Dairy Queen" , 22 inches <br /> 4 X 14 feet each in size. <br /> 5 Documentation: same as presented at February 12 , 1988 hearing plus <br /> 6 minutes of that meeting. <br /> 7 Commission Werenicz noted the history of the controversy around <br /> 8 report and this signage which he considered would be unproductive <br /> 9 recommenda- to go into again; <br /> 10 tion <br /> 11 reported that the Planning Commission was recommending <br /> 12 to the City Council that the proposal for a sign vari- <br /> 13 ance to allow the signage which is currently on the <br /> 14 Dairy Queen after the store was "remodeled or rebuilt" <br /> 15 as the Council chose to interpret it be granted; <br /> 16 reported the Commission recommendation which acknow- <br /> 17 ledged this would involve a variance of approximately <br /> 18 92 square feet over what the Ordinance allowed a <br /> 19 building of that size; <br /> 20 reiterated the Commission findings that the signs were <br /> 21 in good taste; precedents had been established for <br /> 2 allowing businesses with multi-frontage exposure addi- <br /> 3 tional signage; and that there had been. no expressions <br /> 24 of public opposition to the proposal. <br /> 25 Ranallo Recalls Similar Cases where Signage Was Disallowed <br /> 26 The Councilmember told Commissioner Werenicz that another precedent <br /> 27 had been set for disallowing existing signage when the Council made <br /> 28 the owner of the barber shop on Lowry Avenue take down his non- <br /> 29 conforming signage when he redid the whole front of his building. He <br /> 30 was concerned that merchant ' might perceive unequal treatment if this <br /> 31 merchant were a11cu:ea tc keep his non-conforming signage after making <br /> 32 the improvements to the extent he did of his building. <br /> 33 The Commission representative responded that "to be honest, the <br /> 34 Commissioners felt they had been taken" in this instance, having had <br /> 35 no prior notice that the building would be leveled instead of just <br /> 36 having an addition put on when the drive-through facility was added. <br /> 37 Parallel Drawn to Mickey D' s Restaurant Signage <br /> 38 Commissioner Werenicz indicated he perceived Commissioner London' s <br /> 39 comments after the Commission had voted 5 to 2 to recommend approval <br /> 40 of all the signage on the building accurately reflected the majority <br /> 41 of the Commissioner ' s feelings of frustration after the reception <br /> 42 their recommendation to deny in the above case had been overturned by <br /> �3 the Council. <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.