CC MINUTES 02241988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� 1 Applicant' s Wife Gives Their Side of the Controversy 2 Janet Plaisted reacted to the statement that the Dairy Queen building 3 had been completely removed by stating the foundations had been left 4 intact. She was told that with no basement under the building, it 5 would be hard to calculate the foundation as more than 30% of the 6 building. 7 Werenicz indicated that from the elevations the Commission had been 8 furnished at the first Commission meeting, as well as the impression 9 both the applicant and contractor left with the Commission that 10 evening, the Commissioners believed the building was only going to be 11 remodeled for a drive-through addition and all were shocked to see the 12 building leveled the next day. He added that he perceived these 13 impressions were accurately reflected in the minutes of the 14 Commission' s October 21, 1987 meeting in the Council' s agenda packet. 15 Ranallo said it was clear to him that at least 70% of the building had 16 been removed, which meant the roof sign was no longer grandfathered 17 in, which could result in other merchants who had been denied signage 18 might be asking to have it reinstated if the rotating sign was left up. 19 Makowske indicated she didn' t think a parallel could be drawn between t220 this store and the Lowry Avenue barbershop which fronts on only one 1 street. She said that, in spite of the "bad taste" she also shared 2 about the way the Dairy Queen owner had handled the matter, she still 23 thought there were some good reasons for allowing this roof sign to 24 remain, including the fact that the Commission had recommended the 25 Council do so. 26 The Councilmember then made a motion which granted a variance for all 27 the existing signage on the Dairy Queen building, which Mayor Sundland 28 seconded for purposes of discussion. 29 Marks offered as a "different perspective" in the issue, "the fact 30 that there had been cases in the past like the Mickey D' s Restaurant 31 where the Council had chosen to overlook whether or not the City had 32 been taken" in favor of basing their decisions on whether or not a 33 particular building needed more signage than the ordinance allowed. 34 Ranallo objected to the terminology inferring the City had "been 35 taken" in this case because up to now, the Council, who makes the 36 final decision, had only given approval to the drive-through Addition, 37 October 28 , 1986 and denied a companion request for a free-standing 38 sign in front of the store. 39 In reference to the connection drawn between this signage and Mickey 40 D' s, Councilmember Ranallo said he thought the Dairy Queen building 41 was a sign in itself where the Council had recognized it would be 2 difficult for persons driving by the restaurant to know what business 3 was conducted there without signage. The Councilmember added that 5