Laserfiche WebLink
,_ -: <br />j <br />s' <br />Yaye <br />September 21, }~~~ <br />•~.,,~; Partyka noted that we des have a sign ordinance regulating signing ~~I <br />.and further, that if w;. }ceep allowing variances- there may be no ;ij <br />need to have an ordinance. ;_I' <br />Harty replied that they just aren't giving away variances, but ~~ <br />are asking for some thin3G now and-the rest in the years to come.. ,i~ <br />Harty .further noted tha•c the motion as stated would eliminate ` <br />some of.the non-conformities right now and the rest-latere Ii <br />_. <br />-~ <br />Bchling noted that in voting for'the motion they have perhaps - ~' <br />f. <br />more latitude as compared with voting "no" and permitting `no ~'~, <br />changes.. <br />' Partyk~..noted that ne way"~o bring signs or signing into con- ~`~ <br />~- formance ~is.when non-ccnforming signs are altered or changed. `. ~ <br />.< <br />., <br />Harty replied that we are seeking conformance by the motion. <br />Fredrickson responded 'chat the .Planning Commission might be <br />encouraging others. to erect non-conforming signs and then make <br />applicat~.on -for a .variance. ~.` <br />;. <br />Vote on motion--5 ayes - 2 nayes (Partyka, ~'rearickson)--Carried. <br />... . <br />`Fredrickson and Partyk~ noted that their reasons for .voting. <br />against the motion were that they could see no warrants present <br />to justify the variances. <br />SP-75, Clark Pharmacy znd VN-162, Rodney Bi?.lman <br />There was no one present representing the app7.icants on either <br />of these two items-and as such Chairman Brown suggested than <br />-these two items be handled towards the end cf the meeting to <br />allow fora representa•ci~e to be present. <br />